Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Health Boards

Mr. O'Neill: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next be meeting the chairmen of Scottish health boards to discuss the funding of their activities

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): I shall next be meeting health board chairmen on 12 June, when a number of major issues affecting the provision of health services will be discussed. I have no specific plans to discuss the financial allocations to health boards for 1984–85, which were discussed at my last meeting with chairmen on 13 March.

Mr. O'Neill: Before 12 June, will the Minister reflect on the possibility that one reason for the decline in Tory support in Lothian, and the crushing Labour victory in the Edinburgh district council elections, has been the Government's display of the shallowness of the Prime Minister's promise that the NHS was safe in her hands when, in fact, Lothian health board has been subjected to such drastic cuts that 250 employees are likely to lose their jobs?

Mr. MacKay: The 200 jobs mentioned in the newspapers recently are not 200 real jobs—200 people will not lose their jobs. It is simply that Lothian will not take into post the 200 additional jobs that it had planned to make available. I remind the House that since 1979 we have spent more money on the NHS than ever before. There are more doctors and more nurses treating more patients.

Mrs. McCurley: Will my hon. Friend advise the chairmen of the health boards that, wherever possible, they should privatise services so that they become more efficient?

Mr. MacKay: Yes, indeed. The health board chairmen are well aware of the need to run the health boards as efficiently as possible. That may mean putting certain tasks out to private contractors, which may be the best way of obtaining value for money in the NHS.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I know that the Minister has taken the trouble to consider the matter that I wish to raise. Will he keep in mind the great difficulties under which the

Western Isles health board is working because of the high incidence of geriatrics in the area and the conditions under which local hospitals are operating?

Mr. MacKay: All the health board chairmen are well aware of the priority given by both this and the previous Government to the needs of the increasing number of elderly people. I am equally well aware of the proposal now before my Department from the Western Isles health board for hospital provision in Stornoway, which we are now considering.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that the attitude of the Opposition arid the health service unions is wholly irresponsible in regard to what they are saying about the running down of the Health Service? Does he further agree that compared with 1979 more than 6,000 additional nurses and 400 additional doctors are working in the NHS, and that the Government have spent an additional £120 million this year on the NHS? I do not understand how on earth the Opposition can take such an attitude.

Mr. MacKay: My hon.. Friend is absolutely right. There have been many new developments, such as the increase in cardiac surgery, heart bypass and hip replacement operations. The additional work being done in the NHS shows the priority that the Government give to it in real terms.

Mr. Eadie: When the Minister gets around to meeting the chairmen of the health boards, will he make a special point of talking to the chairman of Lothian and ensure that he briefs himself on what is happening in the Lothian area? Are there to be cuts in the Health Service in Lothian? The general practitioners in the area are warning Members of Parliament about what may happen.

Mr. MacKay: As I have already said, I shall meet all the health board chairmen in June, and that includes the chairman of the Lothian health board, whom I met in March when I met the other chairmen. Of course, the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members can point to a certain hospital whose services are being cut because they are obsolete or out of date, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said, throughout the whole of Scotland there are now more doctors and more nurses treating more patients and we have a better Health Service than the one that we inherited from the Labour party.

Long Leaseholders

Mr. Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation to give a right to holders of long leases to convert their interest into that of full ownership.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): My right hon. Friend has no present plans to do so.

Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister try to forget that he is the son and heir of a member of the landed aristocracy? Will he condemn unhesitatingly the inhuman and unconscionable acts of the Earl of Seafield in his attempts to evict elderly tenants occupying houses under long leases which are now about to expire? Does he realise that in Scotland there is no legislation to allow such tenants to convert their tenancies into full ownership, and will he take early action to persuade his right hon. Friend that immediate action is required unless—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has asked a number of questions.

Mr. Ancram: I shall deal with some of the hon. Gentleman's questions. I expressed earlier my sympathy for the conditions in which a number of tenants of the Seafield estate find themselves. Plainly, it is a matter of anxiety for the Government, but it is strictly an issue between the landlord and the tenant. It is not one in which the Government can intervene directly. I remind the hon. Gentleman, who reminded me of my background, that he is a lawyer, and in the legislation that he proposed he was effectively suggesting expropriation without compensation, which is contrary to the principles of law in Scotland.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that in my constituency there are a substantial number of leases of the type which the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) is trying to convert? Is he aware that the Scottish Law Society and others have for some time been trying to find suitable legislation that would alter that position, and that the matter is being pursued actively at the moment?

Mr. Ancram: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised the subject of leases in his constituency. They are slightly different, because they are perpetually renewable. Certain problems exist with regard to them, because in many cases the landowners are not known. It is a matter that we are considering, because legislation may well be required. At the time of the Long Leases (Scotland) Act 1954 there were some 600 Seafield long leases. There are now fewer than 40, so many of them have been converted in the intervening period.

Mr. Ron Brown: Through his considerable influence, will the Minister ensure that Robb's lease is not disposed of by British Shipbuilders at the expense of the local community? Will he ask Graham Day to come clean about the latest bid and ensure that shipbuilding continues on the River Forth? It is important. It involves a lease and the law of Scotland. When will the Government spell it out?

Mr. Ancram: I was not aware that Robb's lease was a long lease in the terms of the law of Scotland, and therefore I do not think that that question arises from this question.

Employment (Glasgow)

Mr. David Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet Glasgow district council to discuss unemployment in the city.

Mr. Martin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to secure existing jobs in industry in the Glasgow area.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): My right hon. Friend has had no request from Glasgow district council for a meeting to discuss unemployment in the city. Glasgow has special development area status and the selective financial assistance which we have given since May 1979 has created more than 5,400 jobs and safeguarded more than 6,200 jobs in the city. At the same time the Government have supported a number of special projects by the Scottish Development Agency to assist Glasgow; for example, GEAR and the Scottish exhibition centre.

Mr. Marshall: The Minister's answer is just not good enough. Does he agree that he and his colleagues have a

duty to tackle the scandalous level of unemployment in Glasgow, even if his party is almost extinct there? Is he aware that Dalmarnock, in my constituency, has 63 per cent. unemployment, according to figures that are already six months out of date? Will he consider continuing and increasing the GEAR project, and introducing as a matter of decency and urgency a crash programme to tackle the problem of dampness in thousands of Glasgow houses, and thereby create many much needed jobs?

Mr. Stewart: Glasgow has benefited enormously from public expenditure under this Government. The GEAR developments in the hon. Gentleman's constituency amount to £200 million over a six-year period; the Scottish exhibition centre is a £36 million development, and Glasgow has benefited from the leg-up scheme and will continue to benefit from the Anderson scheme, the St. Enoch's development and the west of Scotland science park. In addition, the Government are committed to disperse to Glasgow 1,400 jobs in the Civil Service and the Ministry of Defence. That is precisely 1,400 more jobs than the last Labour Government achieved.

Mr. Martin: Is the Minister aware that within two years the work force at the Caley workshops, which are now known as Springburn railway workshops, will be reduced to about 600 if British Rail maintains the present level of work that is being given to them. Will the Minister give the House an assurance that he will urge British Rail and Ministers at the Department of Transport to give more work to the only railway engineering works in Scotland?

Mr. Stewart: The Government are committed to a strong, competitive railway manufacturing industry, although detailed decisions in relation to the engineering division at Springburn are for British Rail and British Rail Engineering Ltd. to decide.

Mr. Hirst: Does my hon. Friend agree that Government initiatives have done much to improve the face of Glasgow, and does he further agree that Dr. Michael Kelly's campaign, "Glasgow's Miles Better", has done much more to put Glasgow on the map than the whingeing that we constantly hear from Glasgow Members on the Opposition Benches at Question Time?

Mr. Stewart: The campaign has been a great success and I am sure that, on a personal basis, all hon. Members will join me in wishing Michael Kelly's successor personal success as Lord Provost of Glasgow. One of the most encouraging—

Mr. Foulkes: What about Provost Gibson MacDonald? [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not understand these jokes.

Mr. Stewart: I was just going to add that it is particularly encouraging that the work of Locate in Scotland and of Glasgow district council recently resulted in important inward investment projects by Holmes and Narbur.

Mrs. McCurley: Does my hon. Friend agree that excessively high rates in Glasgow, combined with the doctrinaire principles of the Labour-controlled council, have prevented many companies from coming to Glasgow and providing jobs there?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no doubt that if the new district council pursues


reasonable expenditure and rating policies that will be of great benefit to firms already in Glasgow and will attract new firms.

Mr. Dewar: Returning to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin), does the Minister share our anxiety, given the appalling problems that are faced in Glasgow, at the prospect of 900 jobs being lost at the Springburn engineering works? Will the Minister accept that it is not good enough for him to say, simply, that that is a matter for British Rail, as we expect the Government to show some sort of concern and Ministers to work to ensure that there is sufficient investment in the railway network to save those jobs?

Mr. Stewart: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, as will my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Transport. I heard the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) refer to the issue, and I must repeat that the Government are committed to a strong, competitive railway manufacturing industry, although detailed management, decisions must be for British Rail and for British Rail Engineering Ltd.
With regard to investment in rolling stock, the hon. Gentleman may be aware that since October we have approved five investment proposals amounting to £120 million. British Rail proposes to increase its investment by 40 per cent. between 1983 and 1987.

Local Authorities (Financing)

Mr. Maxton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss the future financing of Scottish local authorities.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): 1 will next meet the convention to discuss Scottish local government finance on 22 June.

Mr. Maxton: Will the Secretary of State go to that meeting in sackcloth and ashes, apologise for his past actions and make it clear that he intends to withdraw all his previous legislation against local authorities in view of yet another overwhelming defeat for his party in the last district elections—or does he intend to continue as an arrogant, unelected dictator with no mandate whatever to interfere in Scottish affairs?

Mr. Younger: On the latter part of the question, I have responsibility to look after Scotland's part in the national economy. That is why I must maintain my responsibility to ensure that no one, including local authorities, spends more than the country can afford.
I am still considering which suit to wear.

Mr. Henderson: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to COSLA that he is determined to continue to protect ratepayers from unreasonable expenditure? In that context, is he not worried that many people who vote in local elections do not pay rates and that many who pay rates do not have a vote? Does he feel that the situation might be improved if expenditure in excess of guidelines were met by a poll tax?

Mr. Younger: I have certainly had no representations of any kind from ratepayers, especially commercial ratepayers, asking for the withdrawal of our legislation to bring rate expenditure under control. I dare say that there

may also be a connection between that and the fact that rate increases this year have been roughtly in line with inflation. In other words, there has been no increase in real terms—thanks to the Government's policies on keeping local government spending under control.

Mr. Home Robertson: Has the Secretary of State any idea who will be representing Kyle and Carrick district council on COSLA? Will he bear in mind in all future negotiations that COSLA has a mandate from the people of Scotland which he will never have?

Mr. Younger: When he has been a little longer in the House, the hon. Gentleman may learn not to use the word "never". He may also recall that in 1980 his party had a very similar result to that which it achieved this year, and look what happened to it in 1983.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: When my right hon. Friend meets COSLA, will he point out that at least one of its members—central region—is so flush with funds that it did not even bother to turn up for a meeting with the Manpower Services Commission yesterday to press the TVEI scheme, which had a good chance of bringing £440,000 to schools in my constituency, and that at the end of the last financial year it rushed out and spent £120,000 of its education budget to buy a dry ski slope instead of using that money to provide books and services for the children?

Mr. Younger: I am most interested in my hon. Friend's comments. If that region has so much money, perhaps it will reduce the rate burden on the hard-pressed ratepayers.

Mr. Wilson: Will the Secretary of State explain to COSLA why he refuses to provide any additional money earmarked for curing dampness in houses in Scotland when he is prepared to allow the Treasury to give Northern Ireland more than £40 million of oil revenue to which it is not entitled?

Mr. Younger: On dampness, the most relevant issue for me to discuss with COSLA might be why £22 million allocated for the maintenance of houses in Scotland was forgone last year through the irresponsible decisions of Labour-controlled authorities when it could have been spent on eliminating the worst of the dampness problems.

Mr. Canavan: When the Secretary of State meets COSLA, will he be more truthful than he was last weekend when he told the rump of the Scottish Tories in Perth that their party was doing much better than it was getting credit for in Scotland? As the Tory vote in the district elections slumped to just over 21 per cent., does that not prove conclusively that the Secretary of State has no mandate to intervene in the affairs of Scottish local government and that he should get out and leave the councillors to get on with the job they were elected to do?

Mr. Younger: When it comes to assessing the balance of truth in political statements, I am happy to take on the hon. Gentleman in a contest at any time.

Mr. Malone: When my right hon. Friend next meets COSLA, will he remind it: of a substantial source of revenue of which it has failed to take account—that available from the sale of council houses—and press authorities once and for all to enter into the sale of council housing in a proper manner and not grudgingly as in the past?

Mr. Younger: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. This would not only provide far more funds for eliminating problems such as dampness, which concern Members in all parts of the House, but would be extremely welcome to the individual constituents whom hon. Members claim to represent?

Mr. Dewar: Will the Minister explain to his hon. Friends who seem dismayed, as well as to COSLA, why further help cannot be given for the dampness problem in response to the report of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? Does he accept that his actions have been miserably inadequate, considering the scale of the problem? Does he recognise that he cannot shrug off the clear, stunning and comprehensive repudiation of his policies which was given at the district council elections? Will he bear that in mind when he makes decisions in the next two or three weeks about general abatement and selective action against those authorities which he considers are overspending?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman must get the problem of dampness into perspective. The reports considered by the Select Committee showed that about £157 million was probably needed to put right the dampness identified in Scottish housing. As for this year alone £227 million is allocated on the housing revenue account, it is self-evident that if local authorities wish to give dampness top priority they can make a big start on the worst cases immediately.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Norman Hogg: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest number of long-term unemployed persons in Scotland.

Mr. Allan Stewart: On 12 January 1984, the latest date for which information is available, there were 129,145 claimants who had been unemployed for over one year in Scotland.

Mr. Hogg: Is it not the case that these figures show the underlying trend of increasing unemployment, which contrasts sharply with Minister's frequent optimistic statements about jobs, which have no basis in fact?

Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. The total number of those in work is rising. Seasonally adjusted unemployment fell by 2,000 during the last two months. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency existing companies are expanding — for example, the Loveable company — and there is new investment in Barclay Glass Lab. The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that today Avery Label Systems announced an expansion worth £2 million, which will increase its work force to 100.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware of the strong case for the Manpower Services Commission concentrating its resources on training and community based projects? Will he pass on these representations to it?

Mr. Stewart: I note my hon. Friend's comments. He has been in correspondence with me about such schemes in his constituency. However, the mode B schemes had over-capacity this year. It is sensible to emphasise the employer-based youth training schemes, which provide direct, work-related opportunities.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Minister not worried that many of those job losses are in the construction industry? Will he draw to the attention of his hon. Friend, the Minister with responsibility for health the appalling conditions of health board houses in Fauldhead? Staff who work in Woodilee are living in atrocious conditions. Will he do something to help those people and at the same time provide useful jobs in the construction industry?

Mr. Stewart: The construction industry will benefit from the steady economic expansion in Scotland, which the Government's policies are now clearly and demonstrably achieving. The detailed point is a matter for the health board.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is most important to keep whatever jobs we have? Will he warmly congratulate the Scottish police on their outstanding work in keeping Ravenscraig open and allowing people to go to work? Will he condemn as irresponsible the attitudes of those unions who wish to close the plant?

Mr. Stewart: All reasonable hon. Members will join my hon. Friend in congratulating the police on the job that they have done in sometimes difficult and dangerous circumstances. I deeply regret any threat to coal supplies to Ravenscraig and the effect that that will have on jobs there.

Mr. Strang: Does the Minister recognise that the jobs which he says have come to Scotland represent a fraction of the jobs which he has destroyed as a result of cuts in the public sector? Can we at least have an assurance that, having destroyed jobs at Henry Robb, the Government will ensure that investment is made available to sustain and expand Leyland Vehicles at Bathgate?

Mr. Stewart: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Government are still considering British Leyland's corporate plan. He must also be aware that the shipbuilding industry faces major problems of overcapacity, not just in the United Kingdom, but in the world. I should tell the hon. Gentleman that employment in the sevice industries in Scotland has been expanding very quickly.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that many jobs have vanished in Scotland because of changes in technology and in consumer demand and, sadly, because of strikes, such as the transport strike, the strike in the steel industry, which contributed to a savage loss of jobs, and the present miners' strike, which looks like doing the same?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the effect of strikes on jobs. The best guarantee of secure employment is satisfied customers. It is encouraging that the structure of the Scottish economy has been fundamentally changed, so that it is well placed to face the challenges of the late 1980s and the 1990s.

Mr. Craigen: The Minister says that he can see an expansion of the Scottish economy. May I suggest that he gets a new pair of spectacles? Will he explain to the House how the Secretary of State for Employment can say that there was an increase of 118,000 in the number of people at work between September and December last year when, during the equivalent period, there has been a reduction of 5,000 in the Scottish figures?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman should re-examine the figures, with or without spectacles. In the second half of the last quarter of last year the total number of those employed in Scotland was estimated to have increased, and the reason was an expansion of employment in the service industries.

Overseas Visitors (Charges)

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the amounts collected by the local health authorities in Scotland under the terms of the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations since the inception of the scheme.

Mr. John MacKay: Health boards in Scotland collected £275,800 in the first year of operation of the scheme.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the Minister agree—I am sure that he will—that this has been a massive cock-up, even by this Government's standards? Is he aware that the administrative costs of the scheme far exceed the miserable sum to which he referred? Will he exercise a spark of common sense and drop the whole ruddy nonsense?

Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman has no evidence to justify his statement that the administrative costs are greater than the £275,000 I mentioned. It is odd that the hon. Gentleman expects people who pay taxes and national insurance in Britain, and who decide to have private medical care, to pay for any NHS service that they may use, yet believes that people who pay no taxes in Britain should come here and obtain health services completely free.

Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister provide those administrative costs? Instead of asking the Greater Glasgow health board to waste manpower and money on this stupid scheme, will he ensure that it spends the money properly on establishing a health centre in Castlemilk?

Mr. MacKay: There is no evidence that the Greater Glasgow health board, or any other health board, has taken on more staff. I should have thought that the income from the scheme of almost £100,000 to the Greater Glasgow health board in 1982 was a welcome addition to its resources.

Regional Development (White Paper)

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the implications for the Scottish economy of the White Paper recently published on regional development in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Younger: Regional policy has played an important part in restructuring the Scottish economy and in promoting the growth of investment and output in both new and older industries. The White Paper builds on this success and affirms the Government's commitment to maintaining an effective regional policy.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that when inevitably, he makes representations to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry during the White Paper review, he will ensure that Scotland does not

lose out, as some of us believe it will? Will he pay special attention to areas such as the Borders, which does not have development area assistance, which prejudices incoming industry and denies access to European infrastructure grants?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his question. Of course I shall take a full part in all the consideration of regional policy, which is of immense importance to the Scottish economy generally. On his last point, I appreciate that areas which do not have development area status do not qualify for European assistance of many kinds. That is part of European policy on these matters. Regional policy make no sense if it did not concentrate the aid that it has available on the areas with the greatest need. The hon. Gentleman's area, the Borders, fortunately has a much lower rate of unemployment than almost all other areas of Scotland, except Shetland.

Mr. Henderson: Can my right hon. Friend say what part of the total employed population of Scotland is in the service sector? Does he agree that the White Paper could encourage the further development of that sector? Finally, will he consider carefully the Fife case for the redrawing of the regional development area map, with particular regard to the case for certain areas in north-east Fife being incorporated?

Mr. Younger: In regard to my hon. Friend's question about service industries, I can give him an accurate figure if he cares to put down a question. I think that the service industries currently cover about 65 per cent. of employment in Scotland. It has been a most interesting feature of the last few years of deep recession that the service industries have performed very strongly. I have doubts about what my hon. Friend says about north-east Fife. Of course, I shall consider that carefully in the course of the review.

Mr. Foulkes: Since the Secretary of State has confirmed that any area that loses its assisted status will lose not only United Kingdom regional aid but aid from the European regional development fund, will he give an absolute guarantee that when the review has been completed no area in Scotland will lose its assisted area status?

Mr. Younger: I do not think that any Minister could give an assurance that any part of the United Kingdom will never lose such status. Surely the hon. Gentleman knows more about reviews than that.

Mr. Maclennan: In view of the underlying fragility of the Highlands of Scotland, particularly the sparsity of the population and its distance from markets, will the Secretary of State listen to the plea of the CBI in the Highland area that no travel-to-work area in the Highlands should be exempted from assisted area status?

Mr. Younger: I note those views, which the hon. Gentleman and the CBI in the Highlands have expressed. I am looking forward to seeing all the representations, which we should have before the end of May, if possible. In regard to commitment to the Highlands, as the hon. Gentleman will know very well, the Government have handsomely fulfilled that commitment with a huge increase in funds to the Highland and Islands Development Board.

Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend at the same time make a statement on the effect of regional policy on the English west midlands—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the question.

Mr. O'Neill: When the Secretary of State comes to my constituency on Monday to open the new development at Paton and Baldwins mill, and when he remembers the welcome investment project which he opened last year at BP Chemicals in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) at Grangemouth, will he think again of the consequences of the regional policy White Paper, which will specifically exclude, or place on a far lower level of emphasis, investment which seeks to maintain and protect existing employment rather than create new employment? Is this not a dangerous principle if applied to the Scottish economy, because we need considerable investment to ensure the maintenance of existing employment as well as the attraction of new employment?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. However, a balance has to be struck between using the funds that we have to deal with the intensive problems of the worst areas and not spending those funds on areas that have sufficient strength to keep development going. It is that sort of balance that makes a good and sound regional policy, in which we are strong believers.

Easter Ross

Mr. Charles Kennedy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement regarding current levels of unemployment and future employment potential in the Easter Ross area.

Mr. Allan Stewart: At 5 April 1984, unemployed claimants in the Dingwall travel-to-work area numbered 2,126—an unemployment rate of 15·9 per cent. The enterprise zone at Invergordon and Alness and the oil rig inspection, repair and maintenance base on the Cromarty Firth are among the encouraging signs of the employment potential of the area.

Mr. Kennedy: I thank the Minister for that rather sad reply, but, in view of the increased level of unemployment, particularly with no contract on the books of the Highland Fabricators yard at Nigg, will he give positive consideration to any proposals that may come from the Highlands from elected bodies or myself on the use of the Manpower Services Commission to try to increase the amount of local training that will take place, so that more local labour can take advantage of the definite prospects which the rig maintenance and repair construction industry offer the area?

Mr. Stewart: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the prospects that he mentioned. I found my visit to the base on the Cromarty Firth very worth while. The figures are an improvement on those of a year ago, when unemployment was considerably higher in that area. The hon. Gentleman has made a sensible and positive contribution with his point about training. There is an application for a training workshop at Alness, which will be considered by the area manpower board in, I think, June.

Home Improvement Grants

Mr. Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the problems caused to potential applicants by the moratorium on home improvement grants.

Mr. Younger: I have received a great deal of correspondence about the improvement and repairs grants schemes in recent months, including many inquiries and representations about the timing and amounts of grant payments. The pressure on resources, which I would now expect to slacken, is a reflection of the very great success of these schemes in the past two years.

Mr. Steel: Leaving aside the case on housing and employment grounds, and the interests of the construction industry, for the Government giving a high and stable priority to home improvements, is the Secretary of State aware that I have dealt with four individual cases in the past few weeks in my constituency where considerable hardship and heartbreak have been caused to people who bought properties, expecting to improve and live in them and who have then found that the Government had changed the rules after the properties had been bought? On reflection, is that not one of the harshest, most cruel, arbitrary and shortsighted attempts to cut public expenditure?

Mr. Younger: I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman complaining that it was arbitrary, cruel and hardhearted to introduce the temporary scheme in the first place. Nothing he can say can alter the fact that in 1979 the total amount of money spent on this was £11 million, whereas on the most recent count it will be £145 million this year. If that is not something on which the right hon. Gentleman feels he ought to have the decency to congratulate the Government, he carries no credibility at all.

Mr. Hugh Brown: Will the Secretary of State look sympathetically at the special cases in Glasgow where, free from ideological bias, they have genuinely tried to seek a partnership arrangement with private developers? The increase in VAT and the reduction in improvement grants means that hundreds of houses are lying empty at the moment.

Mr. Younger: I appreciate that there are cases where it was expected that things would happen quickly which will now take a lot longer. That is perfectly true and I have great sympathy for the people who are affected. When a scheme such as this, brought in with the best intentions, takes off to the extent that it outstrips the resources available, somebody must have the responsibility to do something about it. Although the hon. Gentleman knows about these things, I should say that the number of houses below tolerable standard in Scotland has gone down since 1979 from over 120,000 to 81,000. I should have thought that that was something on which the Government could be congratulated.

Mr. Hirst: I recognise that home improvement grants have done a great deal to improve the housing stock all over Scotland, but is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of people incurred architects' and surveyors' fees in anticipation of being eligible for a grant? As they may not now qualify for a grant, is he able to hold out any expectation that his Department will look sympathetically upon some way of reimbursing those people for the professional costs which they have incurred?

Mr. Younger: I have complete sympathy with people caught in the middle of the changes, but the change in the grant percentage does not necessarily mean that anybody who previously hoped to obtain a grant will not do so, although it may be that a person does not get so much or that it will take a bit longer to get. I also sympathise with the problem caused by fees that have been paid, but it is unlikely that such fees will be more than the at least 10 per cent. which the person concerned would have had to contribute from his own resources. If the grants can go ahead as soon as possible, at the end of the day the person concerned will have his house improved as he originally hoped. It is regrettable that it will take rather longer because of the huge success of the scheme.

Mr. Lambie: Although I have not received another internal memorandum from the Scottish Office this morning, will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government intend to introduce another moratorium on all council house building in Scotland in July this year?

Mr. Younger: As to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I have no such intention. I am sorry that I added inadvertently to the hon. Gentleman's already considerable burden of paperwork.

Mr. Henderson: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, given the difficult interaction between central Government funding and district council priorities, it is not easy to be clear where responsibility lies on specific decisions on discretionary improvement grants? Can my right hon. Friend emphasise to district councils the importance of finding improvement grant help for listed buildings in particular, especially in conservation areas?

Mr. Younger: On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I appreciate that it is disappointing for people who were hoping to get a 90 per cent. grant not to get such a high percentage rate, but it has to be said that it never was the case that everybody who applied for a grant in the 90 per cent. period would get a 90 per cent. grant. In many cases, local authorities exercised their discretion to offer a lesser amount than 90 per cent. There are special arrangements for historic buildings, and I shall look into the matter that my hon. Friend has raised.

Mr. Craigen: May I have a simple assurance from the Secretary of State that, unlike the Department of the Environment, which is considering the possibility of contingency plans for a freeze on local authority housebuilding, the Scottish Office has no such intentions, and that he would resign if such a plan were inflicted on him by the Treasury?

Mr. Younger: I have not heard of any such proposal, and I have no intention of introducing any such proposal. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Gentleman.

Inward Investment (Grampian Region)

Mr. Malone: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest available figures for inward investment in the Grampian region.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Detailed figures are not available, but Grampian region has benefited substantially from inward investment, particularly in oil and oil-related activities. Although some of these investment decisions were influenced by the efforts of "Locate in Scotland", in

close co-operation with the regional authority, most were determined purely by market opportunity without specific Government assistance.

Mr. Malone: Does my hon. Friend agree that further inward investment in the Grampian region in connection with the offshore oil industry will be dependent upon the tax structure applied within the North sea? Will he join me in welcoming for Scotland, and for Grampian in particular, what has occurred in the Budget in encouraging offshore investment and continue to make representations in that connection?

Mr. Allan Stewart: My hon. Friend is right in emphasising that the changes introduced in the fiscal regime and the announcements by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy have resulted in a favourable outlook for the oil industry and related activities.

Mr. Bruce: Will the Minister acknowledge that, in the north-east of Scotland, or in Scotland as a whole, we have not had the full benefit of inward investment that we could have had, and that, where we have investment from overseas we are not strong enough in ensuring, where possible, British participation so as to develop our export markets, using British technology rather than short-term foreign investment? Will he encourage his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to ensure that there is more British participation in new manufacturing investment related to offshore technology?

Mr. Allan Stewart: I am not sure that I quite followed what the hon. Gentleman was saying. I believe that Scotland has been, and is, extremely successful in getting inward investment. That applies to the north-east as it does to the central belt of Scotland. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of what my right hon. Friend has said about research and development in relation to licensing arrangements.

Mr. Ron Brown: Will the Minister ensure that any surplus investment from Grampian is channelled into Leith, a community ripped apart by this Government with the closure of the Henry Robb shipyard? Will he agree—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point.

Mr. Stewart: The Government are fully aware of the problems of Leith and the hon. Gentleman will know of the success of the Leith project, a co-operative venture between the Scottish Development Agency and local authorities, in meeting those problems.

Charities (Registration)

Mr. Yeo: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce a system of compulsory registration for all charities in Scotland.

Mr. Ancram: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend does not consider that any benefits of introducing such a system in Scotland would justify the expenditure of public resources.

Mr. Yeo: As all charities enjoy tax concessions and, therefore, all taxpayers are indirect financial contributors to charities, does my hon. Friend agree that it is unsatisfactory for taxpayers not even to be able to find out the names of Scottish charities which they are supporting, let alone ascertain more important financial information


about those organisations? Does he agree that the only way in which the situation can be rectified is for a system of compulsory registration to be introduced?

Mr. Ancram: I appreciate the points made by my hon. Friend, but the cost of setting up a register would also be borne by the taxpayer and there has been little evidence of any need for compulsory registration in the public interest and little evidence that it would secure benefits or prevent abuses. However, if there are difficulties or abuses that have come to my hon. Friend's attention, I shall consider them.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

Scottish Law Commission (Prospective Legislation)

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether he will publish in the Official Report a list of the prospective legislation currently being considered by the Scottish Law Commission.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): No. This information is already available in the Scottish Law Commission's annual reports. In its 18th annual report, published in November 1983, the commission gives details of the work being carried out in pursuance of its published programmes of law reform and of consolidation and statute law revision.

Mr. Kirkwood: I am grateful for that information. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Scottish Law Commission rightly complains in its 18th report that none of the reports that it has published since 1981 has been the subject of a Bill presented to Parliament, except for consolidation measures? I hope that the three-year delay will not creep into consideration of the important recommendations and reports on bankruptcy and diligence, since it is important that those areas of the law are reformed over the next three years, as the Government's economic policies may cause them to be used more than in the past.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: It is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman has not paid more attention to the business going through the House. In the past six months, three reports of the Scottish Law Commission have been acted upon, not least by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie). A number of reports are outstanding and, as the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware; the White Paper "A Revised Framework for Insolvency Law" states:
The Scots law on personal bankruptcy will be dealt with as a separate legislative measure based on the Report and draft Bill of the Scottish Law Commission".
We are not behind with the work of the Scottish Law Commission and in the past six months considerable efforts have been made to deal with its reports.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the Scottish Law Commission is grateful for the assistance that he has given during the passage of the Law Reform (Husband and Wife) (Scotland) Bill?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I apologise to my hon. Friend for failing to mention his private Member's Bill on the outdated rules and law affecting husband and wife. I commend him and his Bill, which ensures that important provisions originally proposed by the Scottish Law Commission are put on the statute book.

Mr. Wilson: In view of recent publicity about the Lord Advocate, will the hon. and learned Gentleman consider urgently drawing the attention of the Scottish Law Commission to the need for legislation to prevent Lords Advocates from nominating themselves as senators of the College of Justice, particularly when divorce work has been taken away from the College of Justice, leaving an excessive number of judges for the work available?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the former Lord Advocate. The recommendation that he should become a member of the College of Justice was made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and not by himself. I should have thought that anyone who had dealt with the former Lord Advocate, either in Parliament or in his capacity as a lawyer, would recognise that he has one of the finest legal brains in the United Kingdom.

Miners Strike

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people have been charged with incidents arising out of the miners strike.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The position as at 15 May is that 513 persons have been arrested and subsequently charged by the police. The majority have been charged either with a breach of the peace or obstructing the police, although other charges, including vandalism and possession of an offensive weapon, have also been preferred.

Mr. Canavan: Is the Solicitor-General for Scotland aware of the widespread concern about incidents such as occurred last week when busloads of miners were arrested on the outskirts of Glasgow after being ordered by the police to discontinue their journey to Hunterston? As this excessive use of police powers is doing untold damage to relations between the police and the community, and in view of the need to try to restore public confidence in the police, will the Solicitor-General or the Lord Advocate act in the public interest by instructing the procurator fiscal to drop all pending charges? If they do not, they will be encouraging the belief that we are indeed on the verge of a police state.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: If anyone is seeking to upset the well-established patterns of prosecution in Scotland, it is the hon. Gentleman. We have a perfectly clear and settled system throughout Scotland. The police make reports to the procurators fiscal, who make an independent and impartial assessment of the situation and determine whether there should be prosecutions. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the cases to which he referred are sub judice. However, the police in Scotland have the authority — where they apprehend that there is the prospect of an offence—to ensure that that offence is not committed, whether it is a breach of the peace, obstruction of the highway or anything else. It is proper to leave such matters to the police and to support them in their difficult and delicate task. It is not for the hon. Gentleman or any of his hon. Friends to seek to arrogate to themselves the responsibility for determining whether there has been a breach of the law in Scotland.

Mr. Fairbairn: Will my hon. and learned Friend remind the House that if large busloads of people travel to


a place to prevent other people going to work, they are committing offences that may well be more serious than breach of the peace and may constitute mobbing and rioting?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his clear perception of the law. He doubtless noted that his predecessor in office has also told the Labour party in Scotland and the Scottish Trades Union Congress that, according to the information before him, the police in Scotland are acting within the law in relation to the present issue. However, if they have operated outwith the law, that is a matter for the courts in Scotland to determine and not for anyone else.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: In view of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has just said, has advice to that effect been given direct to chief constables or do they judge for themselves without any advice being given by a Law Officer?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: No specific advice is given on this matter. The chief constables and police officers who have operational responsibility for such matters in Scotland are well aware of their powers under the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 — passed by a Labour Government — to ensure that order should be maintained and the commission of offences prevented. They are all also well aware that they have power to prevent the commission of offences, not being restricted simply to acting when an offence has already occurred. The law on that point in Scotland — and indeed in England—is perfectly clear.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the widespread concern in Scotland is not just about the number of arrests, but about the disgraceful harassment on the picket lines and the intimidation, which is carried from the picket lines to the doorsteps of homes in the early hours of the morning—

Mr. Canavan: Where?

Mr. Forsyth: Most people in Scotland welcome the efforts of the police, and if confidence in the police is being destroyed it is because of provocation by those who use intimidation to win what they cannot win through the ballot.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. Probably the greatest cause of upset among Opposition Members is that the people who have been charged have been charged with offences that are nothing special and do not relate especially to industrial disputes. The charges concern breaches of the peace, assault, use of weapons and obstruction of highways. Such charges appear before the courts regularly.

Mr. Dewar: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there are many people who might have different views about the merits of the miners strike, but who are deeply worried about the extraordinarily wide use of powers under the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 and the way in which the fundamental rights of the individual to move about the country have been infringed on the rather doubtful premise that, at some future date, an offence might be committed? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman not worried about that as, following that precedent, the police will be able to ban any rally, demonstration or meeting without recourse to public order legislation? Is that not wrong? He must accept that the souring and damaging of the relationship between the police and the public, which is fundamental to our society, is a legitimate cause for concern. Indeed, that relationship has broken down in regard to some important groups. That must worry the Solicitor-General and he must consider carefully whether the right course has been followed.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: If police morale is to be maintained, it would be helpful if the Opposition spokesman on Scottish affairs said that he recognises the difficulty and delicacy of their task in maintaining law and order when people are picketing outside such places as Ravenscraig. The hon. Gentleman's proposition is so ludicrously wide — he used the term "at some future date"—that I cannot possibly answer it. He has been advised by a former Solicitor-General for Scotland that, to date, the police have operated within the law. If they have gone beyond their powers and have not reasonably apprehended the commission of an offence, it is not appropriate for me or the hon. Gentleman to reach a conclusion—it is a matter for the courts in Scotland, once it comes before them.

British Aerospace (Merger)

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Lamont): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about British Aerospace.
The boards of Thorn-EMI and British Aerospace have announced that they are having talks to explore the possibility of a merger between their two companies. Such a merger would fall to be considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State under the provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973, so that he can decide whether investigation by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is required. No decision on this point can be reached until details of a proposal have been studied and a recommendation received from the Director General of Fair Trading.
When British Aerospace was privatised, the Government gave an undertaking that the company would not pass outside United Kingdom control. If the proposed merger is to go ahead, the Government will require the new company to agree arrangements which would continue to give effect to that undertaking. The precise nature of these arrangements would need to be determined in the light of circumstances. The Government will also require an undertaking that British Aerospace's participation in the Airbus programmes will continue.
Subject to these considerations, and to studying the details of any proposal which might emerge from the present exploratory discussions, the Government do not see any reason which would justify using their shareholding in British Aerospace to impede such a merger if it proved acceptable to a majority of the remaining shareholders.

Mr. Peter Shore: This is a thoroughly bad and muddled statement and, depending on how the Minister responds to questions, possibly disgraceful as well.
Does the Minister really think that it is a reasonable use of his powers to begin the statement by dangling the prospect of putting this unwelcome bid proposal to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and then end by saying that the Government will not use their voting power to impede such a merger? That is an astonishingly passive approach by the Government in an industry in which they have the major responsibility.
Does the Minister think it sensible to allow a firm, albeit a successful one, that is involved in colour television and video and in marketing various pop groups to have the responsibility of looking after the development of Britain's largest company in civil and military aviation, in missile technology and in the space satellites? Does he think that there is the experience, expertise, skills and management in the proposed takeover firm, and the long-term commitment to the success of the British aerospace industry that any such ownership must necessarily have?
The Minister referred to the fact that when British Aerospace was privatised, some undertakings were not only given but were written into the articles of association to prevent any large proportion of the shares of that firm falling into foreign hands. The ceiling figure was given as 15 per cent. Although he referred to them, he gave no repetition of those undertakings. I press him, if he is

contemplating any change in ownership, to ensure that the same strong defences against foreign ownership are built into any articles of association and any agreement that is reached.
Another undertaking was given at the time of privatisation that I shall draw to the Minister's attention because it does not feature in his statement. It was in the form of a public letter written by the then Secretary of State for Industry, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). He said:
Following the offer for sale HMG does not intend to sell any more of its shareholding in the company for the foreseeable future. HMG has also made it clear that, in any event, it intends to retain a shareholding conferring more than 25 per cent. of the voting rights ordinarily exercisable in general meetings.
Will the Minister give a renewed undertaking that the words spoken in good faith by his right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State for Industry still stand? If not, we shall certainly want to bring him to account. There will have to be a major debate in the House, because one cannot give such major undertakings and lightly abandon them.
I remind the Minister that the undertakings were given on 48 per cent., on not selling more in the foreseeable future and on the absolutely irreducible minimum of 25 per cent., because, although the Government do not wish to intervene in day-to-day matters, the overall strategic control of an industry vital to Britain's defence and future in aerospace must remain under Government control.

Mr. Lamont: The right hon. Gentleman is somewhat over-reacting. The first point is that these are only proposals. Talks are still going on, and we will have to see what will emerge from them. The second point is that we made it clear when British Aerospace was to be privatised that we would not interfere with the day-to-day commercial decisions that have to be made by the company. The third point, as I implied in my statement, is that the Government's position, subject to the requirements that I listed being satisfied, is essentially a neutral one. If those considerations are satisfied, we do not see any reason why the merger should not go ahead. It would be wrong for me, in advance of the Director General of Fair Trading having looked at the proposal—he has wide terms of reference and takes into account the national interest—to comment on the industrial merits of the proposal.
As to the shareholding in 1980, our commitment was that for the foreseeable future we would maintain the present holding at the same level. It was made clear by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, that that commitment to the 48 per cent. level applied for about a year. It was, however, made clear that we intended to maintain—

Mr. Shore: rose—

Mr. Lamont: Perhaps if the right hon. Gentleman will listen.
—we intended to maintain voting rights of more than 25 per cent. in the company. When a company becomes merged with another company, obviously the device of a 25 per cent. shareholding in the original company which merges would be overtaken by the new situation. The purpose of our shareholding was to ensure that control of British Aerospace remained firmly within the United Kingdom, and that commitment still applies. If this proposition comes about, we must look for the mechanism


by which that position will be safeguarded. It has been made clear time and time again that we intended to reduce our shareholdings in BAe below 48 per cent. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary said that at the time of the Budget debate about public sector shareholdings. The commitment against foreign control remains, very firmly.

Mr. Michael Grylls: Does my hon. Friend accept that the British Government have been well served by an efficient and competitive defence industry, in which, until 1977, the Government had no shares? Ownership of shares is, therefore, by no means necessary. Will my hon. Friend give a categorical assurance that he will do nothing to interfere in the proper workings of the market in relation to this proposed bid and will simply act as any other shareholder?

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right. There are many important defence companies in this country which are efficient and competitive and in which the Government do not have a shareholding. There is no reason why the Government should have a shareholding in them. I have listed the matters about which the Government are rightly concerned. It would be wrong if the Government used their shareholding to force on other shareholders a view to which they were opposed.

Mr. Bruce Milan: Is it not clear that, as the Government presently have 48 per cent. of the shareholding, the merger can go ahead only with positive Government encouragement and approval? Is it not therefore irresponsible for the hon. Gentleman to say that the matter will be left to the other shareholders, especially in view of the undertakings given at the time of denationalisation—which, in the light of this statement, may soon be breached by the Government?

Mr. Lamont: I do not think that it is irresponsible. This company has been privatised, and it is wrong to go on treating it as though it were in the public sector. We have listed our specific concerns, and they will be considered. It would be wrong at this stage to take a view, as the Opposition seem prepared to do, against the proposal, even if those criteria could be satisfied.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I remind my hon. Friend that the companies with which British Aerospace must compete on the world market are highly diversified corporations of the stature, scale and scope of the United Technologies Corporation and the General Dynamics Corporation? Is it not the case that, if BAe is to have an expanding and prosperous future, it must benefit from the cash flow that will accrue from the market-oriented consumer goods of Thorn and the complimentary of the electronics warfare and electronic satellite technology of Thorn-EMI?

Mr. Lamont: I note what my hon. Friend has said. He will have noted what the chairman of Thorn-EMI said publicly about the proposed merger. I have said—I do not wish to go beyond what I have said—that it is improper for me to comment on the industrial merits when the matter falls to be examined by the Director General of Fair Trading.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The Minister is suggesting that the Government do not even have the legitimate view about the deal that any shareholder would have. Given that the Government are the major

shareholder in this proposed merger, it is surely right for the House to expect the Minister at least to exercise the best commercial judgment on behalf of the taxpayers for whom he holds those shares. Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government will assess the commercial benefits from such a merger before making any decision on whether those shares should be put into such a deal?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman ignores what we said in the prospectus at the time British Aerospace was privatised. It was made crystal clear that
HM Government does not intend to use its rights as a shareholder to intervene in the Company's commercial decisions.
The company is in the private sector. The Government are concerned with the Airbus programme, defence, competitive aspects, the matters to be considered by the Director General of Fair Trading and, above all, aspects of foreign control. It is wrong to impose views on other shareholders if the Government are satisfied about those considerations.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the aspects about the shareholding that is perhaps rather special is the shares held by employees? Does he accept that the success of the shareholding scheme and the continued interest of the employees in adding to their shareholdings through the save-as-you-earn scheme should be taken into account? If it is in the best interests of the shareholders and employees to go ahead with the merger, I hope that my hon. Friend will add an enthusiastic voice to that development.

Mr. Lamont: The employee shareholding is an important consideration. I am not sure of the exact figure, but about 4 per cent. of the shares are held by employees. Under the law, the same offer must be made to them as to other shareholders. They will have the opportunity to participate in any decision about the future of their company.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: Is it in the national interest and in the interests of competition to have a set-up in which the avionics industry is tied closely to the airframe industry? Will not that present a risk to the security of Britain? Will it not put certain of our prominent avionics industries at grave risk?

Mr. Lamont: The defence aspects will be considered by my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence. If the hon. Gentleman was hinting that in a competitive sense it is unhealthy for a company with interests in the avionics industries to be tied to an airframe manufacturer, I can assure him that that consideration will be borne in mind by the Director General.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Will my hon. Friend confirm that if the merger takes place the Government will continue with launch aid for civil aircraft projects at the current levels?

Mr. Lamont: Launch aid is available for companies in the private sector, regardless of the structure of the company. As British Aerospace will remain in the private sector, it will continue to be eligible for launch aid.

Mr. George Park: Will the Minister now answer the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan)? As the Government are still the major shareholder, is not the


House entitled to be told the Government's assessment of the proposal? The Minister should not adopt such a stand-back-at-arm's-length attitude.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) questioned the competence of those endeavouring to take over British Aerospace. Are we supposed to believe that, despite the importance of the industry, the Government have made no assessment of the competence of those wishing to take over BAC to carry on its work and to develop it further, in the way that we all want? The Minister must answer those questions.

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman must remember that these are early days. No detailed proposition has yet been put forward. We must await the details if such a proposition emerges. The hon. Gentleman must also remember that the company has been privatised. We said again and again that we did not intend to use our shareholding to interfere in commercial matters. The hon. Gentleman may wish that British Aerospace was still in the public sector, but it is not. We must not behave as though it were a pseudo-public sector company.

Mr. Michael Stern: While I welcome that part of my hon. Friend's statement relating to the future of the Airbus, is he prepared to use the Government's influence to ensure that the continued involvement of the company in future civil airline projects is at least encouraged under any structure that emerges from the merger?

Mr. Lamont: I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that the Government are a guarantor of the development costs of British Aerospace in the Airbus programme. Obviously, the Government will want to be satisfied that those commitments are honoured. That will be a major consideration in the Government's mind. Although that applies to the A300 and the A310, there is no such guarantee for the A320, because the inter-governmental agreement has not yet been signed. As regards a future project, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay), any public or private sector company is eligible for launch aid under the terms of the legislation.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: How else are we to interpret the answer given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) other than that the Minister and his Government colleagues are now willing to tear up the undertakings that they gave on the occasion of British Aerospace's privatisation? Are they not tearing up their own undertakings?

Mr. Lamont: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is advocating that if the merger takes place the Government should go into the market place and buy 25 per cent. of a much bigger company. We gave the undertaking—

Mr. Dalyell: You are breaking it.

Mr. Lamont: —to safeguard the future of British Aerospace against a foreign takeover. That commitment still applies. The mechanism by which it is achieved is something that we will have to consider in the light of the circumstances that may develop.

Mr. Tom Sackville: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in view of the fact that British Aerospace

is relatively cash-short in the context of the major developments that it wishes to undertake, we should give every possible consideration to a merger with a highly prestigious British company which does not just sell at more than twice the multiple of British Aerospace but has a stong projected cashflow?

Mr. Lamont: I note what my hon. Friend says. He is echoing some of the words that have been used by the chairman of Thorn-EMI. If I were to comment upon them, I should be anticipating the consideration that the Director General of Fair Trading is giving to the matter.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is the Minister aware that the rumours in the press and his statement in the House will have caused a great deal of anxiety to all those people who work in British Aerospace? Why did he not give a guarantee that their jobs would be safeguarded in any possible merger? Will he now make it clear to the House that the Government will use their shareholding to ensure that there are no further redundancies in the industry as a result of this possible merger?

Mr. Lamont: Of course I appreciate that these matters cause anxiety. As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, there is a large British Aerospace factory in my constituency. One would not give any guarantee about jobs in British Aerospace, whether or not the merger had been proposed. There is some uncertainty.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a heavy day ahead of us, but I will call the hon. Members who have been rising, if they will keep their questions brief.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Is the Minister sufficiently confident of the track record of Thorn-EMI in its management of advanced technology companies that it has taken over in recent years for him to allow his interests as a British Aerospace shareholder to be possibly prejudiced by such a merger?

Mr. Lamont: As I have already told the House, the considerations that the Director General can employ are wide and relate to the national interest; on previous occasions considerations of the adequacy or otherwise of management have fallen under the scrutiny of the Director General of Fair Trading. I cannot go beyond that; that would be to anticipate his examination.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend accept that there may well be a great deal of sense in the merger, although if I were a Thorn-EMI shareholder I would not touch it with a bargepole? Will he give us two undertakings in this matter —first that the Government will not consider the profit made out of their 48 per cent. holding as the main criterion as to whether the merger should be allowed? Secondly, bearing in mind the doubtful synergy in these two companies merging and the fact that he has referred many other companies to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, surely the huge size involved means that, for propriety to be seen, the matter should be gone over by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to ensure that justice is done to all concerned?

Mr. Lamont: I am sure that the second point will be in the front of the mind of the Director General of Fair Trading. On the first point, I can give my hon. Friend the


assurance that he seeks. The Government did not bring this proposition about: it happened. Therefore, I do not believe that the Government can be accused of having tried to bring it about for financial reasons.

Mr. Ernie Ross: With 48 per cent. of the shares, the Minister must accept that he has a responsibility not just to the employees but to the national interest, and must give some consideration to, and make some statement about, the competence of a company that has been involved mainly in consumer electronics attempting to take over British Aerospace.

Mr. Lamont: I have already said that the Government are concerned about the possibility of a foreign takeover. We are concerned about the continuation of the civil aerospace programme, for which launch aid has been given. We are also concerned about various defence matters. The points about the wider national interest will be considered by the Director General of Fair Trading and it will then be for my right hon. Friend to decide whether a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is appropriate.

Mr. Rob Hayward: Is this not an unnatural merger? In the effort of trying to merge these two companies, will not harm be done to the prospect of British Aerospace improving its productivity, as it has done in the past few months and as the Government have encouraged it to do?

Mr. Lamont: I am not sure what my hon. Friend means by an unnatural merger. Mergers occur all the time as part of the process of restructuring and change in British industry. There are certain national interest considerations that we will consider but, subject to those being satisfied, it must be for the other shareholders to make up their minds, without having a solution imposed upon them by the Government. That would be appropriate for a private sector company.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that when the merger was mooted yesterday in the press the signs were clear that it was in the early stages and that tentative discussions were taking place? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that his statement today will lead people to assume that the matter has gone much further than it has? In any case, now that a statement has been made, the Government should get on with the matter quickly and let us know the proposals.
The second question that I should like to ask—

Mr. Speaker: Briefly.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: —is whether my hon. Friend can advise me whether the Government shareholding in the new takeover—whoever is taking over whom—will be at the same ratio as for the British Aircraft Corporation.

Mr. Lamont: I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be desirable for the matter to be resolved as soon as possible, which would remove uncertainty. At our end, we shall endeavour to act as quickly as possible.
On my hon. Friend's second point, I am afraid that I cannot give him the undertaking that he seeks. We wish to retain a mechanism to ensure British control, whether that means a 25 per cent.-plus shareholding or some other device. We need to consider the matter.

Mr. Timothy Wood: Although I have some reservations about the suggested merger, I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the fact that the initial comments from the Opposition Front Bench are regarded as nonsense by many of my hon. Friends. I hope, however, that the Government will pay particular attention to ensuring that our developments in high-technology industries are enhanced in such a merger and that the competitiveness that we need in such areas is improved rather than reduced.

Mr. Lamont: I note what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend consider that the proposed merger would improve the ability of British Aerospace to compete in world markets? Have the Government considered linking acceptance of the offer with the sale of Rolls-Royce?

Mr. Lamont: As I have said over and over again in the House, I do not want to be drawn on the industrial merits of the merger. I have listed the criteria to which we attach importance. I have also said that the Director General of Fair Trading is entitled to investigate the merger on a wide basis. He will be submitting his views to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Shore: The Minister is confusing himself and the House about two quite separate guarantees that the then Secretary of State gave to the House three years ago when he announced privatisation. Will the Minister confirm that, in respect of foreign producers, he will not allow shares in a merged firm to be held at more than the 15 per cent. limit that was imposed on British Aerospace?
Secondly, in respect of ensuring the national interest in areas of defence and aerospace, will the Minister repeat his right hon. Friend's statement in 1981 that we will retain 25 per cent. of the total shares?

Mr. Lamont: The purpose of the 25 per cent. shareholding on which we gave an undertaking was to ensure that there could not be a foreign takeover of the company.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: That is separate.

Mr. Lamont: No, it is not separate. It is linked. The 25 per cent. was retained so that the articles of association of the company could not be changed and it was written into the articles of association that foreigners together could not own more than 15 per cent. of the company. The two matters were linked and acted together. That was the purpose of the 25 per cent. shareholding, and the 15 per cent. requirement was linked with it. The purpose of the two together was to prevent a foreign takeover of what was seen as a vital British interest.
In a new situation and a much larger company we cannot necessarily just replicate the same arrangements if the merger takes place, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that we wish to have similar safeguards to prevent the takeover of a vital British national interest and that we shall be considering the most appropriate way to achieve that object if the merger goes through.

Cammell Laird (Redundancies)

4 pm

Mr. Frank Field: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the announcement of possible redundancies of up to half the Cammell Laird work force.
The request is specific because it relates directly to the redundancy announcement made last night, it is important because the announcement affects a whole army of my constituents and their families who depend on work in the yard, and it is urgent because redundancies on such a scale raise the question of the future of the whole yard. I hope, therefore, that the request falls within the guidelines by which you, Mr. Speaker, are guided.
I wish to mention two other matters. First, a debate on this issue would allow me to stress to the two sides, who are still negotiating, about the implementation of flexible working arrangements, the importance of reaching agreement very soon. Secondly, it would allow the House to question the Government on their corporate plan for the future of British shipbuilding.
For all those reasons, I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will be able to grant my request.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the announcement of possible redundancies of up to half the Cammell Laird work force.
I do not underestimate the hon. Gentleman's concern about this important matter and I have listened carefully to what he has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Local Authorities (Prevention of Expenditure on Party Political Advertising)

Mrs. Angela Rumbold: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent local authorities from incurring expenditure on advertising for party political purposes.
The Bill would add to sections 137 and 142 of the Local Government Act 1972 a subsection stating:
Nothing in this section shall permit expenditure upon any advertisement or publicity material designed directly or indirectly for party political purposes.
Section 137 gives local authorities power to spend up to the product of a 2p rate on purposes not otherwise authorised by statute. It thus allows local authorities to give grants to any organisations that they deem to be worthy. As no substantive challenge has been made to the terms of the section through the district auditor or the local government ombudsman, at present money can be used for purposes such as supporting to the tune of about £35,000 a celebration for the centenary of Karl Marx and providing more than £30,000 for the Waltham Forest police monitoring group, the aim of which was to oppose the local police, and £21,712 for Women in Greenwich. Similar amounts have been granted to many other organisations for similarly ridiculous purposes.
A recent example which attracted the attention of the district auditor was the allocation of money under section 137 to an organisation called Capital, described as
the trade unions and transport users organisation
which sent out propaganda for the GLC using the pre-paid post. The district auditor has requested the council to remove that money from the grant to Capital. The point of principle, not the sum of money involved, is that funds from rates and taxes should not be used for political purposes. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) has produced a booklet entitled "Politics on the Rates" setting out a large number of similar examples.

Mr. Frank Dobson: How much did it cost?

Mrs. Rumbold: I also wish to amend section 142 of the Local Government Act 1972 to exclude advertising for purely party political purposes. At present, a local authority may provide—by whatever means it considers suitable — information relating to the services that it provides for its ratepayers. I believe that that is absolutely right. I have no wish at all to restrict the ability of local councils fully to inform their ratepayers of the way in which they spend their resources. Indeed, it is a fundamental tenet of good local government that councils should be required to explain openly the priorities that they set for local services.
The only restraint that I wish to impose on the section is on using money raised through taxes and rates for party political purposes. I believe that the emphasis on party politics in local matters has, alas, been due more than anything else to the manner in which legislation passed by this House has imposed greater and weightier burdens of responsibility and expenditure on locally elected councils.

Mr. Tony Banks: The truth is coming out now!

Mrs. Rumbold: The manner in which this power could be misused first manifested itself with the publication of local newspapers such as The Londoner by the GLC, the Southwark Sparrow, if the House can credit that title, Outlook from Lewisham, and even, I regret to say, the Kensington and Chelsea News. Questions about expenditure on those publications have been raised in both Houses by those concerned about the cost to the ratepayer and the legitimacy of such expenditure.
The Government have always taken the view that such expenditure is a matter for the district auditor, but it has now escalated beyond the bounds of locally produced newspapers. The cost of a full page advertisement in The Times is £11,648 per day, and full page advertisements in the Daily Telegraph, The Guardian and The Times together cost more than £40,000 per day. In the past few months advertisements have been displayed regularly in all those newspapers suggesting that Government policy will deprive people of the arts, voluntary organisations and transport.
In normal circumstances, such advertising occurs only during national elections, when the cost is met by the headquarters of the party concerned. I believe that in such cases and, indeed, in all political advertising, the money should come from sources with full knowledge of the purpose for which it is to be spent. I would accept that principle, as many of my colleagues would accept it, for all political levies.
I cite an example of what I mean. To date, the GLC has spent more than £3 million on publicity.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What does the Ministry of Defence spend?

Mrs. Rumbold: The GLC has employed two people to service a special committee to deal with the campaign to fight the Government's abolition proposals and it has spent £98,000 on an extra edition of The Londoner to explain its objectives in this respect.

Mr. Corbyn: What about the anti-CND unit?

Mrs. Rumbold: The GLC has a contract for £300,000 with advertising agents and has openly declared its objectives as
to block, delay and impede the Government's legislative proposals wherever possible, and to mobilise support among opinion formers and the wider public in opposition to the Government's proposals.

Mr. Tony Banks: What a terrible thing to do.

Mrs. Rumbold: Other local authorities have spent money in a similar fashion. South Yorkshire has a publicity budget for this year of £160,000. There are endless examples. Sheffield and Lambeth have both produced videos to market their campaigns. Lambeth used a public information consultant and 75 per cent. of his costs in making the video were paid for by Lambeth council from a special supplementary estimate for £100,000 passed last financial year. The legal basis for that was section 142 of the Local Government Act 1972.
Under the same section, Sheffield city council has set up a campaign unit in London to which many local authorities have contributed since, at present, the section does not prevent an authority from taking such action and justifying it under section 142, where it may be interpreted as the provision of information, which is a function of a local authority.
Further to section 142 and the powers given for the use of upwards of a 2p product, I draw the House's attention to the purposes for which the London borough of Islington has endeavoured to put out of business a legitimate, commercial, local newspaper and substitute, through the use of money available to it under the powers of this section and section 137, a newspaper which is controlled by the majority party of the local authority and which offers advertising space at vastly reduced prices because of the subsidised nature of the funding. That has also enabled the council to run close to the boundary for advertising jobs within the council and for circulating highly suspect editorial comment to residents.
Finally, there is a precedent for the amendment to the Local Government Act, which could be applied most effectively. I refer to the Broadcasting Act 1981. Paragraph 8 of schedule 2 reads:
No advertisement shall be permitted which is inserted by or on behalf of any body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a religious or political nature, and no advertisement shall be permitted which is directed towards any religious or political end or has any relation to any industrial dispute".
It is right that the clause is so far-ranging. The House has debated that clause many times.
The opinion that was taken advised that "a political end" would mean the purpose of affecting in some respect, whether by altering it or maintaining it, the manner in which a community is governed or organised, or in which the power of government, either central or local, is exercised, and would include any purpose which would lead to a result that affected members of the community as members of that community in general, or members of a class within that community. An advertisement that would have this purpose or effect is therefore prohibited by paragraph 8 including—this is the critical sentence—an advertisement which attempts to influence Government policy whether or not it reflects the views of a political party.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I have substantiated my case with examples and given a precedent for my proposal. I ask the House to support this Bill.

Mr. Frank Dobson: I hope that the House will reject the Bill and not give the hon. Member for Mitcham and Mordern (Mrs. Rumbold) leave to bring it in. Conservative Members should perhaps follow the precedent set on 6 May 1782 when the House did not pass Rumbold's Pains and Penalties Bill, which was proposed to relieve the pains and penalties of a member of the Rumbold family who had been heavily involved in that squalid matter, the South Sea Bubble. The family appears to be in decline. This time, instead of relieving the family's pains and penalties, the hon. Lady seeks to impose them upon those with whom she does not agree.
It is an offence to waste police time, and it should be an offence to waste the time of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Then sit down."] The law on this matter is clear. Section 137 of the Local Government Act provides that an authority may incur expenditure for any purpose which in its opinion is in the interests of its area or inhabitants. Therefore, if a council spends the product or part of its 2p rate on party politics, it is open to challenge. I call in evidence the words of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who said:


It is clear that if section 137 were used for party political purposes that would be open to legal challenge".—[Official Report, 23 November 1983.]
If it is open to legal challenge already, there is no need to change the law.
We must first find which councils are spending their 2p rate. Islington council, which the hon. Lady mentioned, is entitled to a 2p rate in excess of £1 but it has spent only £361 million. [HON. MEMBERS: "Thousand."] I am sorry—£361,000. [HON. MEMBERS So far."] The GLC is entitled to raise £38 million, but it has spent only £8 million. [HON. MEMBERS: "Only!"] The Inner London education authority, which is entitled to spend £22 million of its 2p rate, has spent the princely sum of £7,500. Hon. Members should compare that with Tory Birmingham.

Mr. Robin Corbett: It was Tory.

Mr. Dobson: It was at the time Tory Birmingham. It was entitled to spend £3·4 million, and it spent it.
The hon. Lady apparently objects to efforts to inform local people of the consequences of the abolition of the GLC and the six metropolitan authorities. That is not a party political matter. It is a view shared on the GLC and in the metropolitan counties by Conservative and alliance Members—where the latter exist. Therefore, it cannot be a purely party political matter.
The advertisements to which the hon. Lady especially objected invited people not to vote Labour, but to retain their right specifically to vote against the Labour party if they did not like it. The advertisements were in favour of democracy, not party political expenditure.
Tory Members wish to abolish certain councils, and, not content with that, they want the councils to say, "It's a fair cop, guv'nor, we'll come quietly." The authorities concerned will not come quietly. The threatened councils have taken to heart Dylan Thomas's advice and are refusing to
go gentle into that good night.
If we consider other political organisations—the Tory Front Bench have all come in their ministerial cars to vote on this matter—it will be clear that the Government are spending much money on political matters.
The 1979 Tory Government told us that all council tenants were aching to buy their council houses. Why then was it necessary for the Government to spend more than £1 million advertising the right to buy council houses? It was either unnecessary or party political propaganda. There are no other alternatives. The Tory party is pouring money into the pockets of its friends. Tory supporters in the City have received no less than £22 million of Government money for handling the Government's highly political sales of public assets, which all other parties opposed. That was a party political matter. Of that £22 million, no less than £3·5 million was taken by merchant banks and others who advised and assisted in selling British Aerospace, which was discussed earlier.
The Government are continually spending money to put over their point of view. The Government's Ministry of Defence, headed by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), established a special unit to combat the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, but immediately after the general election it was stood down. That suggests that it was set up for party political purposes.
The Government have circulated BUPA literature at public expense, but free to BUPA, to all civil servants to promote their point of view. That was a purely party political matter.
Conservative Members are like what the Australians refer to the Brits as—"a set of whingeing Poms." Year in, year out, the Labour movement puts up with all sorts of propaganda in all the news media, which is paid for by rich Tory Members and their friends. Then, when in a minor way the Labour movement fights back, the Government cannot take it, and nor can their supporters. The squalid proposition should be rejected immediately.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 141.

Division No. 302]
[4.18 pm


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Alton, David
Eggar, Tim


Amess, David
Evennett, David


Ashby, David
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Aspinwall, Jack
Fallon, Michael


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Baldry, Anthony
Fletcher, Alexander


Batiste, Spencer
Fookes, Miss Janet


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Forman, Nigel


Berry, Sir Anthony
Fox, Marcus


Best, Keith
Franks, Cecil


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Body, Richard
Freeman, Roger


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Galley, Roy


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bottomley, Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Goodlad, Alastair


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Gorst, John


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gow, Ian


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gower, Sir Raymond


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Grant, Sir Anthony


Brinton, Tim
Greenway, Harry


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Gregory, Conal


Brooke, Hon Peter
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Browne, John
Grist, Ian


Bruinvels, Peter
Grylls, Michael


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hanley, Jeremy


Budgen, Nick
Haselhurst, Alan


Butler, Hon Adam
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Butterfill, John
Hayes, J.


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Hayhoe, Barney


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hayward, Robert


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cash, William
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hill, James


Chapman, Sydney
Hirst, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Churchill, W. S.
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Holt, Richard


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hordern, Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Cockeram, Eric
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Coombs, Simon
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Cope, John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Corrie, John
Hunter, Andrew


Couchman, James
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Critchley, Julian
Irving, Charles


Crouch, David
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jessel, Toby


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dunn, Robert
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael






Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Rost, Peter


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Rowe, Andrew


Lamont, Norman
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lang, Ian
Ryder, Richard


Lawler, Geoffrey
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lee, John (Pendle)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lester, Jim
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Shersby, Michael


Lilley, Peter
Sims, Roger


Lyell, Nicholas
Skeet, T. H. H.


McCrindle, Robert
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


MacGregor, John
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Speller, Tony


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maclean, David John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Madel, David
Stanley, John


Maginnis, Ken
Steen, Anthony


Major, John
Stern, Michael


Marland, Paul
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Marlow, Antony
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Mather, Carol
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stokes, John


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Mellor, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Merchant, Piers
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Thornton, Malcolm


Monro, Sir Hector
Thurnham, Peter


Montgomery, Fergus
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moore, John
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Tracey, Richard


Moynihan, Hon C.
Twinn, Dr Ian


Neale, Gerrard
Viggers, Peter


Needham, Richard
Waddington, David


Neubert, Michael
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Nicholls, Patrick
Waldegrave, Hon William


Onslow, Cranley
Waller, Gary


Oppenheim, Philip
Walters, Dennis


Osborn, Sir John
Watson, John


Ottaway, Richard
Watts, John


Patten, John (Oxford)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Pattie, Geoffrey
Wheeler, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Whitney, Raymond


Pollock, Alexander
Wiggin, Jerry


Powell, William (Corby)
Wilkinson, John


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wolfson, Mark


Price, Sir David
Wood, Timothy


Raffan, Keith
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rathbone, Tim
Younger, Rt Hon George


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)



Rhodes James, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Mr. Michael Brown and


Rifkind, Malcolm
Mr. Michael Forsyth.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Ashton, Joe
Canavan, Dennis


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Barron, Kevin
Clarke, Thomas


Beith, A. J.
Clay, Robert


Bell, Stuart
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Benn, Tony
Cohen, Harry


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Coleman, Donald


Bermingham, Gerald
Corbett, Robin


Bidwell, Sydney
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Blair, Anthony
Cunningham, Dr John


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dalyell, Tam


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Deakins, Eric





Dewar, Donald
Meadowcroft, Michael


Dixon, Donald
Michie, William


Dobson, Frank
Mikardo, Ian


Dormand, Jack
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Douglas, Dick
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dubs, Alfred
Nellist, David


Duffy, A. E. P.
O'Neill, Martin


Eadie, Alex
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Eastham, Ken
Park, George


Ellis, Raymond
Parry, Robert


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Patchett, Terry


Fatchett, Derek
Pavitt, Laurie


Fisher, Mark
Pendry, Tom


Flannery, Martin
Pike, Peter


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Foster, Derek
Prescott, John


Foulkes, George
Randall, Stuart


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Redmond, M.


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Freud, Clement
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Garrett, W. E.
Rooker, J. W.


Gould, Bryan
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Rowlands, Ted


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hardy, Peter
Sheerman, Barry


Harman, Ms Harriet
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Haynes, Frank
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Heffer, Eric S.
Skinner, Dennis


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Home Robertson, John
Snape, Peter


Hoyle, Douglas
Soley, Clive


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Stott, Roger


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Straw, Jack


Janner, Hon Greville
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Kennedy, Charles
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Wainwright, R.


Leighton, Ronald
Wallace, James


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Warded, Gareth (Gower)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Wareing, Robert


Loyden, Edward
Weetch, Ken


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Welsh, Michael


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Williams, Rt Hon A.


McNamara, Kevin
Winnick, David


McTaggart, Robert
Woodall, Alec


Madden, Max
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Marek, Dr John



Martin, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Mr. Tony Banks and


Maxton, John
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.


Maynard, Miss Joan

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Angela Rumbold, Sir Frederic Bennett, Sir Geoffrey Finsberg, Sir Anthony Berry, Mr. John Wheeler, Mr. Nicholas Lyell, Mr. Christopher Murphy, Mr. Richard Tracey, Mr. Michael Brown, Mr. Michael Forsyth and Mrs. Marion Roe.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (PREVENTION OF EXPENDITURE ON PARTY POLITICAL ADVERTISING)

Mrs. Angela Rumbold accordingly presented a Bill to prevent local authorities from incurring expenditure on advertising for party political purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 176.]

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Now that it has been made apparent, as a


result of that vote, that the Government are prepared to spend about £100 on petrol to bring Ministers to the House to vote for a tin-pot Bill that will be killed by the same Government Ministers one Friday—probably the first Friday that it comes up for debate—and since this has been a total waste of time, perhaps you can tell me what assurances you have had from the Secretary of State for Social Services, or any of the other Ministers responsible for social services, that they will perhaps spend more money on petrol and come to the Dispatch Box to talk about starving miners' families—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Skinner: —in respect of—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Skinner: —help that might be given—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that this is a gross abuse of a point of order.

Mr. Skinner: There is gross abuse of starving miners'—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman does not contain himself, I shall have to ask him to leave.

Police and Criminal Evidence Bill

Order for Third Reading read.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The genesis of this Bill, as the House will recall, lies in the Royal Commission on criminal procedure, established by the Labour Government in the light of growing concern at the unevenness and uncertainty of police powers in a range of areas. As a result of the Royal Commission's deliberations a package of proposals emerged dealing with the various stages of police contact with the public and suspected offenders, and asking at each stage what powers were necessary to enable the police to perform their task and what safeguards were needed in respect of each power to ensure its proper use.
That "necessity" principle—that the police should be given only the powers actually needed for the job—and the principle that powers should be balanced by safeguards, which was integral to the Royal Commission's proposals, have been the basis of the Bill from the start. That was the basis of the Bill that my predecessor Lord Whitelaw presented to the House in 1982, and that remains the case with the Bill before us now. As I emphasised at Second Reading, the Bill's approach of clarifying the present state of the law in order to give the police the powers they need, and the public the safeguards they have a right to expect, is an essential part of my overall strategy to create more effective policing. The police cannot do their job properly without a clear statement of the powers available to them. Nor can they do so without public confidence that those powers will be exercised responsibly.
The fears expressed about the Bill in its original form were, I believe, based upon an imperfect reading of its provisions. But the Government did recognise that some quite genuine anxieties had been aroused, particularly so far as powers of entry were concerned, and made very substantial efforts to provide that the situations about which fears had been expressed, however unlikely they might have been to occur in practice, could not arise, even in theory.
When I took office last summer I made the decision that the various changes made or promised to the Bill by my predecessor should be honoured, and I further set in hand an extensive and thorough review of the Bill's provisions. As a result of that review, further changes were made before its reintroduction. I decided to make explicit on the face of the Bill my commitment to the tape recording of police interviews with suspects. The definition of what constituted a serious arrestable offence was substantially changed. The power to conduct an intimate bodily search of a detained person was restricted to protective purposes only. And the previous Bill's provisions in regard to police Complaints were substantially developed, leading to the creation of a new and powerful Police Complaints Authority.
The Bill has again received a thorough and searching scrutiny in this Chamber and in Committee. As the House will know, it now holds the all-comers' record for the number of sittings of the Standing Committee—59.
The House has in the last two days agreed to 245 amendments. To these must be added the amendments


made in Committee. Certainly the fact of 59 Committee sittings and the amendments to which they gave birth give the lie to suggestions that have been made that the Government have been rushing or steamrollering the Bill through Parliament. But although these amendments in my view certainly improve the Bill, its structure and its principal provisions remain intact.
I shall now summarise the main amendments to which we have agreed. In part I of the Bill, the scope of the power to stop and search for stolen or other unlawful articles has been clarified, to ensure that the ability of the police to protect the public from assault and theft is not artificially impeded. At the same time the safeguards governing the power have been strengthened. There are additional requirements to provide information to a person who is to be searched, and then to record it. These requirements will strengthen the fundamental safeguard that searches may be undertaken only on the basis of reasonable suspicion of the individual concerned, and not on any random or discriminatory basis. The provisions regulating the use of road checks have also been clarified in a way that will make them easier to follow and preserve the ability of the police to trace possible witnesses to serious crime.
In part II, additional protection has been provided for material that is subject to legal privilege. The uncertainties of the law have been resolved in favour of a clear statement that the police may in no circumstances search for or have access to such material without consent. We have clarified the provision in regard to journalistic material although, as I told the House last night, I am not persuaded that it would be right to retreat from the undertakings given last year.
In part III, new safeguards have been introduced to ensure that any delay in taking an arrested person straight to a police station is necessary for the immediate purposes of the investigation and has to be fully accounted for. Clause 22, which empowers the police to arrest an offender if, but only if, the summons procedure would be ineffective or inappropriate, no longer employs the somewhat uncertain test of the prevention of an affront to public decency. Instead, the clause makes it clear that the purpose of arrest in these circumstances is solely to prevent the commission or repetition of criminal offences of this kind.
In part IV, there is now a substantial new protection against the unnecessary detention of a person in custody at a police station. The court which reviews the need for such detention on a police application for a warrant of further detention will be empowered, if it grants the application, to authorise continuing detention for no more than 36 hours without a further full review. In any case, therefore, in which — very unusually — it proves necessary to detain a person suspected of serious crime for more than 72 hours without charge, there will have to be at least two full hearings at which he must be present and will be entitled to be legally represented. Another important new safeguard reinforces the overall time limits on detention by ensuring that the grant of police bail does not turn the detention clock back to zero.
In part V, there are new requirements for the publication of information about intimate searches and new safeguards on the taking and destruction of fingerprints and body samples. The Government are determined to make the right to legal advice effective on the ground, and not exist simply on paper. This is given effect by the new provision for the establishment of duty

solicitor schemes at police stations, backed up by substantial additional provision for expenditure on criminal legal aid.
As to the codes of practice for which part VI provides, the House will see that we have published a further revised draft, again incorporating new safeguards and protections, particularly in respect of the vulnerable and handicapped.
In the evidence provisions of the Bill, parts VII and VIII, we have been concerned not only with important matters of principle but also with complex legal and technical questions. As a result of wide consultation about the impact of high technology on material available to the courts, we have been able to simplify considerably the provisions relating to the admissibility of documentary records and computer evidence, while ensuring that sufficient and stringent conditions are reliably met.
A further significant change is in the area of police discipline. In reviewing the previous Bill in the course of the summer, I accepted the principle that no police officer should lose his or her job or rank without the opportunity to have his or her case presented by a lawyer. I sought to achieve this by a substantial reform of the discipline appeal system. The Bill provides for the first time a statutory entitlement to an appeal tribunal, where legal representation is an established right, in all cases where one of these penalties has been imposed, Further, the Bill provides that such tribunals should be enlarged to include a retired officer from the ranks represented by the appellant's own staff association.
Those changes were welcomed by the police representative bodies, but there was continuing concern that a legal adviser should be available for the first hearing of the case before the chief constable. Therefore, we considered the matter again and announced in March that we were considering how such an entitlement might be provided. As the House knows, this pledge was made good by the new clause that I moved on representation at discipline hearings. Under that clause, unless legal representation has been offered it will not be possible to impose on the officer the punishments of dismissal, requirement to resign or reduction in rank.
The main changes to the Bill which I have summarised are, of course, supplemented by numerous other amendments to make its provisions clearer in meaning and more certain in effect.
I want now to turn to the main purposes of the Bill. It remains, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, the Member for Whitney (Mr. Hurd) and I have stressed on many occasions, both a law and order and a civil liberties measure. A proper balance between the interests of society in curbing crime and the interests of the individual suspected of committing it is maintained throughout. That is true of the provisions on stop and search, searching for evidence, and detention—to name but three of the most important areas.
But the Bill's provisions are important for another reason, too. That is that they provide the right legal framework for modern policing. The Bill's critics have desperately tried to portray it as a vehicle for oppression. The reverse is the truth. It is in the interests of society and the interests of the police that powers and safeguards should be clarified and set on a firm legal footing. Policing which takes place in a grey world of confusion between legality and illegality has no place in modern society. The police do not want that, and nor does the public.
Modern policing requires that the police should have the powers that they need to prevent and detect today's crime. Yet today's police powers have developed in a patchy, haphazard way over nearly two centuries and all too often bear the marks of their origin. For example, powers of arrest are today contained in about 70 different Acts of Parliament. The anomalies and inconsistencies are legion. No one—least of all the Royal Commission, or presumably the previous Labour Government who set it up —doubted that.
The police need clearer improved powers in order to deal more effectively with those crimes which must worry the public, particularly in our inner cities. The police need the power to stop and search for weapons if they are to respond properly to the appalling incidents of street violence which we read of daily in the newspapers. They need the power to stop and search for stolen goods—not in some cities but not others as at present — but everywhere. They need that power if they are to make the bigger impact on burglaries and theft of any kind which the public rightly expect. They need the power to take fingerprints and body samples from suspected criminals if they are to use to the full the resources of modern forensic science. If the public seriously want to see those criminals caught—which I am confident they do—legislators must provide such a power.
The public are shocked, and rightly so, and hon. Members write to me, and again rightly so, when tragic incidents occur in police custody. But we cannot expect the police to prevent disturbed or dangerous people from inflicting wounds on themselves or on those around them if we do not ensure that the police have the power to have a doctor conduct, or in the last resort themselves to conduct, intimate body searches to remove concealed weapons.
Of course, it would be more comfortable if we lived in a world where the police did not have to have such powers. But we do not live in such a world and legislation has to recognise that fact. What is necessary, and indeed long overdue, is the proper definition of the power, and this is provided for in the Bill.
Indeed, modern policing does not require a general extension of police powers, but rather their reform in the light of modern society's needs. It is crucial that stronger, better, clearer safeguards should be provided for the individual—both in those areas where police powers are necessarily extended and in other areas too. Policing by nod, nudge and wink is unacceptable to the police and society alike.
I shall not go through in any detail the safeguards provided in the Bill, but I do want to remind the House how important and substantial they are. I have already mentioned detention by the police without charge and the new safeguard of a further review by a magistrates court for which we are now providing. The provision for tape recording of suspects' interviews at police stations, which is now on the face of the Bill, constitutes another move in the same direction. The safeguards built into the stop and search provision are just as important and, like those on detention, entirely new. I stress that point. When stopping and searching someone whom the officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting of carrying a weapon or stolen goods, a police officer will now have to identify himself, to state the purpose of the search and the grounds for

undertaking it, and to make a record wherever practicable to do so. The person searched will have a right to obtain a copy of the record. This procedure will act as a check on any tendency to use the power in a random or discriminatory manner.
Reformed powers balanced by reformed safeguards have one overall purpose — to provide for effective policing carried on with the confidence and co-operation of the public. Of course, the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill will not and cannot achieve that on its own. No legislation, however complex or comprehensive, could do so. But because it fits in with the broader strategic approach to modem policing which we are determined to pursue, I am confident that it will provide an enduring legislative framework for policing for many years.
Modern policing should not be aimless or random, but should concentrate scarce and costly resources where they will have most effect. That is the approach adopted by the Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis, and by many other chief constables, and it is one that we are encouraging. The improved powers in the Bill to prevent and detect crime complement that approach.
Modern policing must also be conducted without discrimination and with courtesy and should make the fullest use of public co-operation. The Metropolitan commissioner's new statement of aims for the Metropolitan police and complementary handbook of professional conduct will recognise these crucial points. Throughout the country, neighbourhood watch schemes are drawing local communities into more active involvement in crime prevention. So are crime prevention panels. Pursuing the same approach, this Bill gives a statutory basis for police consultation with the community which I am confident will build up links of respect and cooperation between police officers and the local public they serve.
The new prosecution service — independent of the police—for which the Government hope to introduce legislation in the next session will reassure the public that those who assemble evidence and bring a charge are not responsible for conducting the prosecution. The same philosophy lies behind the new police complaints procedure which the Bill introduces under which the investigation of complaints by the public will be subject to independent scrutiny and control.
The Bill before the House is, therefore, designed to provide a sound and enduring framework for policing with consent over the years ahead. It is the result of much thought and debate. Many changes and improvements have been made to the proposals which originally came from the Royal Commission. But the Bill still remains firmly based on the key principles identified by the Commission, that the law governing the investigation of crime must be open. It must be fair and it must be practicable. It must also strike a fair balance between necessary powers and appropriate safeguards. It is because I believe that the Bill as it now stands fully satisfies those criteria that I commend it warmly to the House.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The House is relieved to hear that, following an intensive search by air, land and sea, a missing person has now been traced, namely, that the Home Secretary has been found and returned to his loved ones or, in lieu of such persons, the Government Chief Whip, although, if the speech that


the House has just heard is anything to go by, he is clearly suffering from selective amnesia. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems little the worse for his ordeal. An intimate search has revealed that the cliches that he always carries about his person have not been tampered with, and are in full working order.
For months now, the Minister of State, Home Office has been doing the real work on the Bill to the best of his ability, for what that is worth. The right hon. Gentleman has inherited from the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) when he was a Minister of State at the Department of the Environment the position of the man who follows the Lord Mayor's procession with the broom and shovel, and it is the Bill now before the House on which he has worked so hard.
We are coming to the end of the consideration of a Bill which has lasted in the House now for more than six months. It is one of the longest and most meticulous examinations of a piece of legislation in the history of the House. I thank my hon. Friends who served on the Standing Committee, and whose hard work, care and dedication have led to a great many of the changes in the Bill. We have just listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman giving a list of changes, and attempting to imply that these were changes that the Government have volunteered out of their wisdom and goodwill. Almost all the beneficial changes of the Bill have come about as a result of pressure by the Opposition in those 147 hours of debate.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman was present for three of the 147 hours, and absent for 98 per cent. of the Committee proceedings, so he is not qualified to make any knowledgeable comment on what took place there. He will not have been aware, for example, that the Bill, the revision of which he boasts about, was so badly drafted that, even at the end, we had to suggest to the Government that one perpetuated power in one schedule would have been repealed in another schedule. We had to put that right for the Government, just as we had to put so many other things right for them.
When we commenced Second Reading of the Bill, on behalf of the Opposition, I listed the principal matters to which we objected in a Bill that as a whole we regarded as highly obnoxious. On some of these matters, we have managed to obtain improvements. We have managed to obtain legal representation for police facing disciplinary charges. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) ought to know that he would have not had a hope of achieving that had the Opposition not voted with him, together with others of his hon. Friends. It was our pressure, our presence and our votes that made that possible, and the hon. Gentleman had better know it, because, of course, the change was made between the two previous Bills.
In the last day alone, we have achieved the possibility of a code of practice on stop and search. We have achieved the requirement of an additional application to the magistrate for a prolongation of detention without charge, and we have achieved greater safeguards for those arrested away from the place in which it is intended to question them.
As a result of the amendments that we have moved, and to which response has been made, there is a tighter definition of intimate body samples. Our major complaint on Second Reading and in Committee to which the Government at first failed to respond, about the danger of

unrecorded arrest and release before the police station is reached, is now rectified, because such an arrest has to be recorded. There are greater safeguards for people who are forcibly fingerprinted. There is some tightening of the definition of serious arrestable offence. These are all matters about which I complained in my speech on Second Reading.
The Opposition have achieved a number of other major changes in the Bill, including greater safeguards on the search of a vehicle, and greater safeguards for newspapers receiving unsolicited material from people who obtained the material in an unauthorised fashion. The phrase
an affront to public decency
has been replaced by the phrase
an offence against public decency.
There are greater safeguards for children and young persons who have been arrested. There are greater safeguards for people from whom non-intimate samples are forcibly taken. There is the abolition of the common law power of search of persons.
All these matters are ones on which we put forward amendments, for which we argued, against which in many cases the Minister of State resisted our arguments, and. to which in the end the Government yielded. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, that is true. That came about because the Minister of State was placed in such appalling difficulties that in the end he had to concede. The right hon. Gentleman had better go back and look at the Committee debate on why a private garden is a public place before he preens himself on the way in which he has conducted himself on the Bill. All these changes have brought about improvements in the Bill — sometimes marginal, sometimes a little more than marginal. However, as far as the Opposition are concerned, the Bill remains a profoundly obnoxious measure.
The Secretary of State in his speech began by saying that the Government were acting upon the recommendations of the Royal Commission on criminal procedure. I regard that as a statement of the most extraordinary effrontery, because repeatedly in the Bill the recommendations of the Royal Commission have been overridden. When we have quoted those recommendations, the Minister of State has repeatedly said, "Oh, well, on this one we disagreed with the Royal Commission." To say that the Bill is in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission is such a departure from veracity that that in itself ought to be an offence under a clause in the Bill.
Let us look at the major matters—because there are also many minor matters—in the Bill which we regard still as unacceptable. There are the intolerably wide stop and search powers which, if one extrapolates from the London figures, could affect up to 7 million people a year in the country. There are the road search and road block powers which are also far too wide and can be conducted on the recommendation of a superintendent, although the Royal Commission said that any recommendation ought to be given by an assistant chief constable. There is the fact that the police can still carry out forcible intimate searches. We are relieved to hear from the Home Secretary's speech that such searches will be carried out with courtesy, though I am not sure what good that will do the people who are searched.
The police will still be able to take intimate bodily samples; they can still forcibly take fingerprints without having to go to a magistrate for permission, which is an innovation.
The definition of journalistic material is still ludicrously imprecise and is a danger to press freedom. For the Home Secretary to claim that the Government have clarified the definition of journalistic material is yet another example of his lack of familiarity with his own Bill.
The term "serious arrestable offence" can still mean pretty well whatever the police want it to mean. The general grounds for arrest in the Bill amount almost to a blank cheque. The Home Secretary claimed some credit on accountability, but the accountability provisions in the Bill amount to little more than a charade. As for the complaints procedure, that is a violation of the recommendations of Lord Scarman, because it contains no independent element of investigation and, therefore, no confidence can be had in it.
Above all these other matters to which we object very strongly, there is the provision for detention without charge for up to 96 hours and detention without charge and incommunicado for up to 36 hours. That is an unacceptable infringement of the liberties of the subject.
Although this is the third version of the Bill—the first was brought in by Viscount Whitelaw and the second was introduced by the Home Secretary on 7 November —and about 300 amendments were incorporated into the Bill on Report this week, it is still a Bill that no one, except its ministerial progenitors, loves or wants.
The Police Federation certainly does not want the Bill. Its representatives have made that clear to me.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: They want the Bill.

Mr. Kaufman: They want extra powers, but they do not want the Bill, and the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) was present when they told me that they do not want the Bill.
The police may want greater powers—I do not differ from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds if he is saying that, though I would oppose the police being given greater powers—but they do not like the Bill because they have asked for a clarification of their powers, so that officers carrying out their duty to prevent or detect crime can know what they are allowed to do, but the Bill, far from clarifying the duties and powers of the police, obfuscates them.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I know that the last thing that the right hon. Gentleman would want to go out from the House is the impression that he has put into the mouth of the Police Federation something that it does not believe. The federation has a number of reservations and criticisms about the Bill, but it believes that it would be a tragedy if the measure did not get a Third Reading and go onto the statute book.

Mr. Kaufman: I am not putting anything into the mouths of the Police Federation; I am saying what the Police Federation put into my ears. Representatives of the federation told me that they do not want the Bill. I am happy to go on record saying that. [Interruption.] It is no good the Home Secretary muttering; he has hardly

bothered to trouble himself with the Bill over the past six months. We may come back to omissions for which he is responsible, but let us content ourselves with the Bill for the moment.
The Bill does not clarify the duties of the police. It imposes a mountain of bureaucracy on a force that is hard-pressed in any case. It imposes duties with regard to the training of, for example, custody officers, though it provides no more money. Indeed, the rate support grant provisions will affect the police badly.
Lawyers do not like the Bill. The Law Society certainly does not like it and has made it clear to us throughout the passage of the Bill that it believes that the measure infringes many legal safeguards. The defenders of civil liberties certainly do not like the Bill, because it contains unprecedented statutory infringements of civil liberties.
What about this as a Bill to fight crime? The Home Secretary made some claims for that, and is not alone in doing so. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) has handed me a leaflet that is apparently circulating in Birmingham and, since it was printed in Smith square, it may be circulating more widely. It says:
The Conservative Government is pledged to crack down on crime and make the streets safer for you and your family.
Well, really! After five years of this Government, they are still circulating such material, which ought to be liable to prosecution under the trade descriptions legislation.
Let us look at a handful of the statistics about crime under this Government. All offences recorded by police totalled 2,396,000 in the last year of the Labour Government and 3,071,000 last year— an increase of 28·2 per cent. Offences of violence against the person numbered 87,073 in the last year of the Labour Government and 111,230 last year—an increase of 27·7 per cent. The Home Secretary had the effrontery to refer to the Government's fight against burglaries. The number of burglaries has risen from 565,710 in the last year of the Labour Government to 813,386 under this Government —an increase of 43·8 per cent.
In 1982, the last year for which statistics are available, only nine crimes were cleared up for each policeman in England and Wales. The clear-up rate in the last year of the Labour Government was 42 per cent. Last year, the rate was 37 per cent. We have an unprecedented crime wave under a Government who came to office deceiving and misleading the electorate into believing that they would reduce crime or combat it more effectively. The crime statistics are at record levels and our constituents — certainly my constituents and those of my hon. Friends — want an effective fight against crime and action to deal with it.

Mr. Robin Corbett: My right hon. Friend referred to the document that is being stuffed through letter boxes in my constituency and in others in Birmingham. Does he agree that instead of wasting their efforts peddling such trash around the city of Birmingham, the Government would do better to make serious efforts to reduce the number of burglaries and other crimes to which my constituents and others are subjected?

Mr. Kaufman: I should have thought that the document might be described under the Bill as a prohibited article and that anyone carrying it should be subjected to the stop and search powers as soon as the Bill becomes law.
For the past six months, we have debated the Bill in great detail and we know that it will do nothing effective to fight crime. However, it will erode the liberties of millions of innocent people. The overwhelming majority of the millions who will be stopped and searched will be innocent. The overwhelming majority of those detained without charge, and detained incommunicado, will be innocent. That is why I say — I say it clearly so that there can be no misunderstanding—that the next Labour Government will repeal the Bill. We will do what the present Government have failed to do, although they have claimed to do it. I mean that we shall bring in measures effectively to fight real crime. As a demonstration of our wish to fight real crime, of the paper-thin nature of the Bill before us and of the fact that the Bill is a profound violation of civil liberties, we will vote against it today.

Mr. Roger Sims: As the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has said, we are nearing the end of a long road. For those of us who sat through the 59 Committee sittings the road has been especially long, and it has been longer still for me because I also sat through the 41 sittings of the Committee on the previous Bill. That makes a total of 100 sittings. Before that, I was involved in assisting my noble Friend Lord Whitelaw in preparing the White Paper which preceded the Bill and stemmed from—although it was not intended to be a carbon copy of—the Royal Commission report.
In view of that background, the House will not be surprised to hear that I think that this is a good Bill. However, I have one reservation, and there is also one area on which I should be grateful for some assurance from my right hon. and learned Friend. Clause 49 precludes the police from undertaking intimate searches for evidence. I expressed my views on that point on Second Reading and in Committee, and the matter was ventilated again in the early hours of this morning. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will not come to regret his decision on that clause.
I would be grateful for an assurance on clause 39, which deals with detention. I believe that the review periods and the 96-hour maximum are about right. They strike the balance which we seek to maintain throughout the Bill between giving the police adequate powers to investigate crime and maintaining the rights of the individual. I was surprised that some of my hon. Friends voiced doubts about this point yesterday. I think that the correct balance has been struck.
One of the provisions requires that detention shall be reviewed by the court after 36 hours, unless a sitting of the court is due within six hours. This provision is causing some concern to the Justices' Clerks' Society and the Association of Magisterial Officers. They are concerned about what will happen if no sitting is due during that six-hour period. It is assumed that there will be a special sitting of the court. The Magistrates Association has made it clear that, in accordance with their public duty, the magistrates would be willing to appear at such courts. However, representatives of the court staff pointed out to me at the weekend that if sittings were to be held at weekends — perhaps on bank holiday weekends — a standby clerk would have to be ready at any time to open up the court, not to mention a caretaker to unlock it. There

are financial implications. Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend could consider that point and write to me about it.
I believe that the Bill in its present form is a good Bill. I believe that the Committee and its predecessors did a good job in improving and refining the provisions. I am referring not only to the Ministers who have dealt with this Bill but to those who worked on its predecessor. I am sure that we would all include the present Solicitor-General, who did much work on the previous Bill.
The Bill has been consistently misrepresented. There was an example of that a few moments ago. We are accustomed to certain clergymen and members of other groups launching into print or speech without studying the proposals which they criticise, but there is no excuse for the campaign of deliberate distortion and misrepresentation carried out by the Labour party, and by the Labour party masquerading as the GLC and spending £179,000 of ratepayers' money on opposing the Bill. There is no excuse for the efforts of various other organisations also financed by the GLC.
Much material has been produced by those who oppose the Bill. One of the most widely circulated leaflets, which was put through doors throughout London, announced that "The Police Bill is back". It claims that, under the Bill, people can be frisked in the street by force, and suggests that that is a new power in the Bill. As we all know, the Bill restricts the powers of the police to stop and search, and surrounds them with conditions. The leaflet refers to the powers to set up random road blocks. It does not refer to the present conditions under which road blocks may be set up. The Bill in fact restricts the powers of the police to set up road blocks, and builds in safeguards. There are also references to detention and to the 96-hour period.
The Opposition know perfectly well how unsatisfactory the present law is and how it is improved by the Bill. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton referred to literature being circulated in Birmingham. The inaccurate literature distributed in the London area at the ratepayers' expense is far more deserving of criticism.
There is also something which calls itself the National Campaign Against the Police Bill. The headline on its leaflet reads: "No Police State!" That is nonsense. The leaflet states:
The Government is out to destroy rights and freedoms which working people have fought for for centuries.
That is absolute rubbish. Anyone who studies the Bill must realise that there is no shred of truth in it. It is a statement that one might expect from some of the hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen who are named as sponsors of the campaign, but it is disappointing to see there the name of the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs), who usually takes a balanced view.
It is to the credit of the Opposition that, in Committee, in general, they were constructive in their criticism and co-operative in the Committee proceedings. However, it was strange to hear the right hon. Gentleman both criticising the Government for the number of Government amendments that have been made in order to improve the Bill and boasting about the extent to which he has obtained concessions from the Government. He must make up his mind. If the Government had announced their intention to push through the Bill whether people liked it or not, the right hon. Gentleman would have been equally critical.
Despite their activities in Committee, the Opposition presence on Report was minimal. If the Opposition's


friends at county hall had seen the empty Benches in the Chamber during the past couple of days, they might not have thought that their money had been well spent.
This is an important Bill. I believe that it will be one of the most important Bills to be passed during this Parliament. It has been very well considered, and I believe that the final product deserves the full support of the House.

Mr. Robin Corbett: In Committee we asked about the cost of the necessary training of police forces to ensure that officers who use the extensive powers provided in the Bill are properly aware of its provisions. What assistance and advice is the Home Office offering police forces on that training? What will be the scale and extent of the training? What is its expected cost? Will the Government provide extra money to make the training possible?
Whatever the Opposition's views on the subject, I am sure that I do not need to labour the sense of making plans well in advance when such an extensive measure is introduced. The training must be organised and carried out properly. Who will be the trainers and who will train the trainers? I am sorry that the Home Secretary has had to leave again — perhaps he will reappear later. The industrial and commercial world is alarmed by the rate of turnover of those for whom the training is provided. I am told that about 90 per cent. of graduate recruits to the West Midlands constabulary leave within two years and that about 50 per cent. of other recruits also leave within two years. Therefore, the Government must think again if they believe that the training will be a once-for-all exercise. I have no reason to believe that the turnover rates in the west midlands are exceptional, so training must be continuous. We know that it is expensive but that is no reason for giving up the attempt to ensure that it is adequate and that there are trainers in post to conduct it effectively so that training is renewed and repeated as people come and go.
Time is another important factor in training. It is regrettable that, especially in metropolitan areas, the police seem to have adopted a far too reactive style of policing. To take the analogy of a fire station, it is as though they wait for the bell to ring, get into a car and rush off to deal with the problem. I am not being critical but trying to address reality. Such policing has a bearing on training, the time available for it and the Home Secretary's aspirations for the Bill. One of the things that he said with which I agree was the critical importance of relations between the police and the public in the battle against crime. If that relationship is to be encouraged, developed, nurtured and sustained, far more attention must be paid to the community aspects of policing as opposed to the reactive policies that have been adopted by many forces.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that Sir Kenneth Newman is the inventor of the not terribly agreeable term "pro-active policing" because he accepts the hon. Gentleman's diagnosis and is trying hard to move in that direction.

Mr. Corbett: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I am sure that senior officers are aware of what I am describing. I raise the point because it is a real problem and is relevant to the establishments of some police forces. The Home

Secretary should examine that. We know that, in the past couple of years, there have been more policemen on the beat but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) rightly observed, there has been a continuing rise in most branches of crime.
It has been explained to me by someone who has good reason to know what is happening that it is not so much community policing that is carried out as policing that is geared to inhabitants of the area concerned. It is a case of, "Do what you can to keep them sweet." On the edges of big cities such as Birmingham, in, for example, Sutton Coldfield, Solihull and Edgbaston which are inhabited principally by professional people, I am told that the police take the view of, "Play it by the book and do not upset them." If we regard cities as a dartboard, closer to the centre of the board, almost anything goes. It is precisely in the inner-city areas where stop and search, for example, will have the most serious impact. In inner-city areas, which my right hon. and hon. Friends often represent, where ethnic minorities tend to live, policing must be conducted with the utmost sensitivity. However, because of pressures on police time and reliance on reactive policing, we run the risk of doing the most damage to the relationship between police and public.
No doubt Conservative Members are fed up to the back teeth hearing what I am about to say, but it is our strongest argument against the Bill. There should be no doubt about our wanting a well-equipped, well-trained and responsive police force because working people and their families suffer most from the rise in crime. We favour law and order but we want police forces to be more sensitive to the communities of which they are a part. We want them to consult more but, by thrusting new powers on them, the Bill means that we run the risk of going in quite the wrong direction.
Anyone who gives the matter a moment's thought will realise that someone who is stopped on the street under stop and search powers is potentially a friend lost by the police unless that stop—and especially the search—is carried out considerately and sensitively. It is all too often the case that, because of pressures on the police and shortage of manpower on some shifts, things get done in a hurry, words that were not meant are said, the tone of voice is wrong and the next time that the offended person is able to assist the police with their inquiries, co-operation is withheld. It is precisely that co-operation on which the police rely.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: Much of what the hon. Gentleman has said is absolutely true, but does he not accept that the safeguards provided by the Bill nine times out of 10, prevent the very events that he has described?

Mr. Corbett: I am afraid that I must say, quite flatly, that I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point for one moment. We all know that, whatever safeguards are written into the Bill or the code of practice, no Minister can stand at the Dispatch Box and guarantee 90 per cent. — let alone 100 per cent. — compliance. In the real world of policing on the streets, especially in large cities, the police are under pressure or, perhaps, inexperienced. A policeman's station sergeant or senior officer might be on his back because he has not processed enough bits of paper and is therefore regarded as not doing terribly well. He is therefore under tremendous pressure to stop, search or arrest people. These are the pressures that are experienced on the ground.
I shall allude to the leaflet about crime in Birmingham. I detect from the back of this leaflet that it was printed in January 1984. It was clearly part of the thrust of the Conservative party in my city of Birmingham to try to keep that jewel in the Tory crown. As we all know, it did not work. It did not deserve to work, because this leaflet is an affront to anybody's intelligence. We know from my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton that there has been rising crime in Birmingham, and I have already said that this is particularly in the inner-city areas, where people are afraid to go out in the street and where the rate of burglaries is unacceptable in a society that likes to think of itself as civilised. The leaflet says:
The Conservative Government is pledged to crack down on crime and make the streets safer for you and your family.
That is a cheapskate way of standing the facts on their heads in a bid to buy votes at the ballot box.
The Bill is a dangerous one and is going in completely the wrong direction. I was extremely pleased to hear my right hon. Friend pledge that when the Labour party is again in government it will repeal the Bill.

Mr. David Ashby: I shall vote against this Bill. My first reason is the one to which I alluded yesterday when I spoke on Report. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and his party have said that they will repeal this Bill. I understand that the Liberals and the SDP will be voting against the Bill. I said yesterday, and I repeat again today, that a Bill such as this has wide constitutional implications. It demands consensus politics and agreement between the major sections in Parliament and in the House, and the fact that we have not got that agreement must mean that the Bill is fundamentally wrong in some important particulars.
The Bill is fundamentally wrong because, although it deals with an issue on which there is broad agreement on both sides of the House, an issue of liberty and freedom, we have been unable to agree on it. There is not the consensus that one would want for it. One wonders how the Bill will be enforced if there is no such agreement.
We want certainty, and a law that will stand the test of time. I am saddened that the Opposition have said that they will seek to repeal the Bill if they are in a position to do so—I hope that they never are—because parts of it are good. I should seek only to amend it. However, as I said yesterday, and as the right hon. Member for Gorton also said yesterday, this Bill reaches a pinnacle, and the pinnacle is the 96 hours detention. That is the most important part of the Bill.
The very fact that we needed a Bill such as this in the first place, and the fact that I voted for it on Second Reading, is a sign that the present law is a muddle. We have no proper rules about stop and search or about search warrants. Those have been dealt with in the Bill; I support those measures and think that they are right. However, in other areas the law was in a mess and remains in a mess. The Bill has failed to grasp that and to come to terms with the failures in our law.
There is a complete failure to do something about the law relating to identification. This was dealt with in the Royal Commission report, but is not seen in the Bill. Lord Devlin's report to the House on 26 April 1976 was on this subject, and the law of identification is still a complete and utter mess. It is no better now than it ever was. Cases are decided by identification alone, and it is for the House to

deal with this problem, but it has failed to do so. That is a failure in a Bill which has been applauded as a major step forward.
Lord Devlin's report referred to the Court of Appeal in the case of Turnbull, but the Court of Appeal is not a legislative body. It does not make law; it defines it. All that it could say was that it was worried about identification, and Lord Devlin has shown how worried one should be about identification. However. at the moment, all that we can do is say that in cases where there is identification evidence, the courts should give a warning about how dangerous it is to convict on that evidence. However, we still have convictions on fleeting identification, on fleeting views of people. We have all had experience of thinking that we have recognised somebody, only to find we are wrong. People we know well have not identified us correctly. The most dangerous evidence of all is identification evidence, which is not dealt with in the Bill.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: My hon. Friend says that the Bill does not deal with identification and that we have failed to tackle the matter. With respect, I think that he has failed to read the documentation. The draft code of practice deals with identification of persons by the police. If he reads our proceedings, he will see that the Committee tackled the problem, although it may not have arrived at the same conclusions that my hon. Friend would like. However., to suggest that this problem was not dealt with is absurd.

Mr. Ashby: My hon. Friend is wrong. The code does not deal with identification. There is only one solution for it, and Lord Devlin made it perfectly clear—that there should be corroboration of a material particular of identification, but there is no attempt to deal with that, or with identification. It is a matter of evidence and has not been dealt with by the Bill.

Mr. Hayes: Much of what my hon. Friend says on identification is right; he has been at the Bar for some 20 years and should know. However, I take issue with him on one point. The case of Turnbull is clear. The judge had to direct the jury members, as I am sure my hon. Friend will accept, to the fact that there had been only a fleeting glance, and that they must not convict on an identification.

Mr. Ashby: I wish that I had the feeling that my hon. Friend has that that is a safeguard, because that is not what happens now. All that the judge has to do—my hon. Friend should know this as he is also a practising member of the Bar—is warn the jury of the dangers. The jury can still, and juries do still, convict on the basis of fleeting identification. This is a dangerous thing and there have been a number of cases at whose outcome I have been deeply disturbed. There must be many cases of a miscarriage of justice through mis-identification.
Another matter to which I refer is accomplice evidence. The Bill makes no attempt—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Member, but I remind him that on Third Reading hon. Members must consider what is in the Bill, not what they believe should be in it.

Mr. Ashby: I shall endeavour to keep to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I referred yesterday to entrapment and agents provocateurs, which should be fully debated in the House.
The last great muddled area in the law is detention. The Bill has got it wrong in legislating for detention of 96 hours. The legislation has dealt with that matter in a way that will be less than helpful to the courts. A maximum period of 96 hours detention will result in less respect for the law and perhaps less respect for the police. People will feel that the law is not fair and just. Successful laws would mean that people would believe that the laws are fair and just. That is a consensus approach, and why I say that the Bill deals with a major constitutional issue. We need a consensus approach.
I deal daily with the actions of the police at the sharp end, when I see them giving evidence and being cross-examined. Sometimes I wince on observing the contortions they must employ because of the legal procedures and failures in the law. I generalise that aspect as a muddle in the law. No odium can be attached when the police keep within fair and sensible procedures. Fair and acceptable laws will mean that the actions of the police within those laws will be looked on favourably and that respect for the police will increase. If the procedures are unfair and unacceptable, the lack of respect for the police will continue.
I repeat what I have said already: this is an important Bill for civil liberties. Other parts of the Bill are good, but they are mere minnows compared with the whale of the period of detention. Because the House on Report was unable to accept a period of 48 hours detention, which I believe most people would see as fair and reasonable, I cannot support Third Reading.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Members of the public might not understand the courage it takes to make a speech such as the one made by the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby). His approach was profoundly different from that of the Government. He revealed his intention to vote against a Bill to which the Government attach great importance. Those of us who agree with him that a matter of such seriousness should be approached in a non-partisan spirit can only congratulate him and wish him well. We share his hope that his attitude will influence those in the other place who must consider the Bill.
The Government's purposes in bringing forward the Bill were well described by the Secretary of State at the beginning of the debate. I made it plain on Second Reading that the Social Democrats and Liberals accept the need to assist the process of policing by clarifying and codifying police powers. That exercise is a necessary development in our society, because powers, which have developed in a random and haphazard way, vary from city to city and between one part of the country and another. It was right to seek, as the previous Labour Government did, to bring some order into this chaos by setting up the Royal Commission and to bring forward legislation in this regard.
I repeat, sadly, that the Bill's progress through the House has not resulted in substantial improvements that will enable my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Liberal and Social Democratic parties to support the Bill. We shall, therefore, vote against the Bill.
The Bill embodies a number of provisions that are repugnant in a civilised society. I shall not dwell on those

matters in detail, because of the number of hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate. The provisions in clause 49(7) for intimate body searches to be carried out by persons other than a doctor are profoundly repugnant. arAlthough the Secretary of State said that those intimate searches would be carried out only in the last resort, I am afraid that that is not how it appears from the wording of the Bill. It seems to be a matter of convenience only.
The powers for stop and search are regularised and made universal throughout the country. We genuinely welcome the undertaking given on Report —[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot follow the hon. Member's speech because of a fringe meeting that is going on. If the discussion were conducted sotto voce, I might be able to hear the hon. Member.

Mr. Maclennan: I shall endeavour, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to give you the benefit of my basso profundo at full volume.
The Bill's provisions on stop and search are wider than are strictly necessary. Although the attempt to codify the power of the police is entirely justifiable and welcome, a major defect is that the Bill does not back up the code of practice with any effective sanctions for its breach. We do not doubt that the Secretary of State pulls the strings, although he does not always appear to defend his case. The Bill would have been enormously strengthened had it included a provision to exclude from a criminal hearing evidence that was obtained either illegally or in violation of the code of practice.
I did not find the arguments deployed earlier against the availability of a discretionary exclusionary power to the courts in the least persuasive. The organisation Justice has called it the fruit of the poison tree doctrine. I hope that when the Bill is considered in another place, their Lordships, especially the Lords of appeal in ordinary, will address themselves to the issue. Such a provision would not undermine the Government's purpose, but would assist in giving the public confidence that the code, which is an integral part of the package, will not be breached. Without such assurances, and without a different complaints procedure against the police, the Government's best efforts will fail to reassure public opinion that the safeguards built into the system are adequate.
I acknowledge that the Secretary of State has sought to effect changes during the passage of the Bill. That is the purpose of lengthy Committee and Report stages. But all the efforts to modify the powers and to increase the safeguards are undermined by the non-availability of sanctions for any breaches of the code. The Minister shakes his head. I hope that he will refer to the matter when he replies to the debate. He may argue that there are other remedies, such as disciplinary action against the police. However, the threat of victimisation and the cost of pursuing any remedies may prevent most people from seeking a remedy. Indeed, the complex nature of any remedies will put them beyond the reach of those most at risk.
The most serious defect in the Bill is undoubtedly the provisions for detention without charge. I find it surprising that the Government have said so little to justify such draconian provisions. I shall not repeat the points made about 98 and 36 hours detention before access to legal representation. In a civilised society, such a provision


should not stand, and it must be repealed at the earliest opportunity by another Government. It is in that respect that the Bill overbalances in its attempt to enhance the powers of the police without proper safeguards.
There is a clear and serious risk that, notwithstanding the code of practice, those held for 36 hours, incommunicado and without access to legal representation, could, and I fear will, be subjected to unjustifiable pressure that will be made worse by the codification of the law in clause 39(2)(a), which allows the further detention of an individual to obtain evidence by questioning.
The issue was raised with the Secretary of State on Second Reading. I fully acknowledge what he said then about the Court of Appeal case, which I have subsequently read. However, it does not in any way detract from the force of my argument. To codify that provision gives the police a power that I believe we should have been abridging, not embodying in statute.
The main purpose of the legislation should be to seek to strengthen the powers of the police in a way that does not undermine the confidence of the public. The police have an incredibly difficult task. In a society that is under huge social and economic stress, their task is almost impossible in many areas without very close co-operation with the community. The benefit of such co-operation can be clearly seen. I have read a moving account of developments in one of the more lawless parts of London that comes under the Metropolitan police. Canon Charles Walker was a chairman of the community police consultative group in Lambeth. In a letter to The Times on 24 March, he drew attention to the sharp downturn in crimes of violence, especially muggings, in that borough in 1983 compared with 1982. He spoke of the work of the community police consultative group in bringing that about. Such dialogue is essential if the appalling crime rates in certain parts of London are to be reduced. That task will be greatly assisted by clarifying the frontiers of police powers. Because the Bill gives the police certain powers—especially those of detention—that are open to serious abuse, it cannot be sent on its way to another place with the benison of alliance Members.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am sorry that I am not wearing the fifty-niners badge that the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) had struck for those who served for so long in the vineyard of Standing Committee. In making that apology, I assure him that I have it between two other items of which I am proud. One is the Police Federation bowl, given only to those who have rendered distinguished service to that organisation. I understand that the only other hon. Member who possesses one is the previous paid adviser to the Police Federation, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan).
My fifty-niner badge resides between that bowl and something else of which I am proud — a gift that I received for such work as I was able to do in the area of race relations. I apologise for not wearing that badge.
The Bill is a historic measure. It is long and complicated and, frankly, it could have been better. I have no doubt that it deserves to come onto the statute book for these reasons. First, it will help the police to combat crime, to uphold the Queen's peace and to retain the confidence of the public, without which they cannot be effective. Secondly, the measure will help the public, in

general, better to understand the law and, therefore, to respect it. Thirdly, it will help the legal system, including the courts, to administer the law. To that extent, I should like to congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who bore the brunt of the Bill in Committee, on their achievement in piloting through this place a measure of which the Government can be proud.
Having said that, of course, I am bound to make a number of criticisms of the Bill. My right hon. and learned Friend will understand that I make them in the context of being, overall, its steady supporter.
The reasons for needing a measure of this kind are self evident. The previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth set up the Royal Commission. It worked extremely hard and produced what I believe everyone will agree was an extremely valuable report. I find it odd that the Labour party, which set up the Royal Commission, no sooner received the report then said, almost without reading it, that it was against it. I believe that that coloured its attitude to the Bill from the start.
The Royal Commission's work commenced and continued for two reasons. First, the enormous increase in the volume of crime to which our people are subjected and, secondly, the dramatic change in the character of crime, which we now experience. Crime is becoming more violent and more complicated. It is involving more young people and, incidentally, many old people as victims and perpetrators. I am afraid that it is becoming more industrial, political, ideological and even more racial. It is against the background of the increase in the volume and the disturbing change in the character of crime that a measure of this complexity is required.
The Bill generally makes the powers of the police more relevant to the task that they have to perform. I hope that it will make their powers more effective. I shall do my part to see that those powers are better understood. At every stage where the police powers are defined, clarified, and in some cases, extended, they are often marginally weakened. The Bill seeks to balance that by safeguards for the individual and, rightly, for civil liberties.
The greatest civil liberty is the right of the majority of our people to live in their homes and walk in their streets in peace. It is because I believe that the Bill sustains that civil liberty that I believe that it is worthy of support.
I said that I would mention some criticisms. First, I should have liked to see the Bill deal more effectively with the menace of drugs. I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend is considering further steps on that, and I hope that he will move as speedily as possible because the drugs menace is serious. I should have liked to see the Bill tackle the problem of public order and, to a degree, it does. I recognise again, that my right hon. and learned Friend is reviewing the complex of public order powers and he will understand why I stress the urgency of that, not least because even today, as The Times reported this morning, the chief constable of Nottinghamshire, Mr. McLachlan, has once again demonstrated the urgent need—when he used the Riot Act powers—for some codification and definition of the law in respect of public order. I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to move as quickly as he can on that matter.
The Bill will impose upon the police service an enormous new volume of paperwork. The number of forms and schedules that they will have to fill in, store and


make available is legion, and it alarms me. When my right hon. and learned Friend can see his way through the forensic and research departments of the Home Office perhaps he will consider the electronic notebook. I believe that the police officer must move in that direction. It will be one way to keep up with the volume of forms that he has to complete.
The Bill does not strike entirely the right balance between the new responsibilities of the police and the resources needed. The financial memorandum attached to the Bill is misleading. There will be substantial additional costs for training and, when soon we reach the tape recording of evidence, there will be a substantial capital outlay. The police service and police authorities feel some anxiety that, within the cash limits that my right hon. and learned Friend has to respect in view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's larger policy issues, there may not be room to create the additional resources that are needed to implement the Bill in full.
Those are some of my broad criticisms, but I have a number of detailed criticisms, some of which will be familiar to the fifty-niners. First, it is a mistake to deny the police for the first time the ability to search in the street under the headgear of those who may be carrying weapons or drugs. We have debated that issue in full. I believe that it is a weakness, and that we shall come to regret it.
Secondly, it is wrong to prevent the police from carrying out a superficial search of a suspect after arrest unless that search is related to specific grounds of reasonable suspicion. At the moment the police make it a general rule to search. It is wrong to take that power away from them because there will be times when, if that search is not done, a police officer, as a consequence, may have his life put at risk.
Thirdly, on the disagreeable subject of intimate search, it is a serious mistake to make it impossible for the police to make the necessary intimate searches for drugs, the fruits of crime and other items that may be important for the prevention of the most terrible tragedies. That is a matter which we have debated in some detail, but in my judgment and that of the police service, there is a lamentable failure to recognise the facts. The facts are that significant quantities of drugs are regularly carried in their body orifices by professional criminals. My sources for saying that are the crime committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Metropolitan police criminal investigation department.
Drugs are being taken in that way to the inmates of our gaols and they give rise to hallucinatory violence. My sources for saying that are the superintendents association and senior officers responsible for investigating such cases in our prisons.
Because the street value of heroin and cocaine is high, terrorist organisations which need money to finance their activities in London organise drug trafficking by the carriage of cocaine and heroin in body orifices. My source of information is the anti-terrorist officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
Despite that police experience, henceforth police surgeons will be barred from searching for offensive items. That is hardly what the majority of the Conservative party was led to expect in relation to law and order.
My fourth criticism is that the Bill puts an end to the police practice of invariably taking arrested persons to a

police station. It is argued that that might become apparent well before a suspect arrived at the police station that the reasons for the arrest had disappeared or were no longer valid and it would be vexatious in that case to go through the motions and haul the suspect to the police station. I understand the force of the argument, but there are overriding reasons why the police are anxious to keep the safeguard of taking all arrested persons to a police station.
The police would risk being charged with corruption if they could release suspects in the street. That experience is well known in the United States. Further, safeguards are available for both parties at police stations. The arresting officer and the suspect were safeguarded, whereas now the arresting officer is able to release suspects in the street at his discretion.
My final detailed criticism concerns the position of the custody officer. I congratulate the Royal Commission and my right hon. Friend on the creation of a new concept of policing that I believe will become world famous. I predict that in future people will come to this country to study the job of custody officer. He will be the main point of contact with the public at a police station. He will be the custodian of civil rights, guardian of the statutory procedures under the Police Act, from finger printing and access to solicitors to the provision of meals and soap. He will be keeper of the cells and monitor of good police behaviour vis à vis arrested persons.
For all those reasons the Government deserve great credit for creating the job of custody officer. Yet the Bill withholds some of the means, while it wills that good end. The custody officer should be a sergeant, otherwise he will lack the authority to do his job. He should not be given duties that would interfere with his role as a custody officer, save in emergencies. There is no provision in the Bill for a custody officer to hold a particular rank in every case, nor is there protection against the Bill's massive new code of practice, which covers almost 200 newly defined police duties to be carried out by the custody officer. There is no protection against an infringement of the code that might render him liable to disciplinary proceedings. There needs to be much more precision with regard to the role and duties of a custody officer and the provision of resources to meet those new tasks.
I am critical of details, but my general support for the Bill is undoubted. I
should put it on record that the police service as a whole has the same view. The Police Federation, like me, would have preferred that different clauses be inserted into the Bill. But the Police Federation would deeply regret it were the Bill not to be given a Third Reading and put on the statute book as quickly as possible. That goes for the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales as well as the Police Federation.
The Police Federation is especially grateful to the Government and to all Committee members for the changes that have been made in the discipline proceedings. So that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) will not think me churlish, I must recognise his support for the changes in Committee. The support of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who represented the alliance parties, was very important and welcome. I thank the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman for their support.
The Government have a clear majority in the House. It was only against the background of that majority that the reforms could have been achieved. This charter of the


rights of police officers was won largely because of the attitude of the Home Secretary and the Minister. I thank them for that.
The Bill has had a long and complicated passage through the House. It would be a tragedy if it did not rapidly make its way into the statute law of our country.

Mr. Stuart Bell: I am grateful for the opportunity of following the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). Not only did he sit through 59 sittings on the Bill, but I understand that he sat on the Committee discussing the Bill's predecessor, so he deserves two badges.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Bill as a historic measure. I subscribe to that view in some ways. The Bill is likely to be a historic watershed. We thought that the Bill would help the police and would gain public confidence in the force. We believed that it would help the administration of justice and add to public understanding of the law, but that may turn out to be a pious hope, because public confidence in the police will diminish once the Bill's effects are felt. I do not believe that the Bill will enhance the administration of justice. It will, rather, confuse public understanding of the law.
The Home Secretary, in commending the Bill to the House on Third Reading, said that the powers and safeguards of the police should be clarified and set out on a firm legal footing. We agree with that. The Secretary of State also referred to the anomalies that were legion before the Bill was introduced. The Opposition have said in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading that we are witnessing a further accretion of power to the police, which means more power for the state.
We have heard much of the concept of rolling back the frontiers of the state, but the Bill rolls back the tide of civil liberties. My right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) was the instigator of the Royal Commission report during the last term of office of the previous Labour Government. The Commission report was referred to by the Home Secretary as well as by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths).
The terms of reference were, first, to have regard both to the interests of the community in bringing offenders to justice and to the rights and liberties of persons suspected or accused of crime. The third reference took into account the need for efficient and economical use of resources. It did not escape the notice of the Committee or of the House that the Opposition placed great emphasis on the rights and liberties of those suspected or accused of crimes.
The Home Secretary referred to the safeguards that were written into the Bill. We have always regarded them as flimsy, fragile, spurious and bureaucratic. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has said so himself. He believes that additional paperwork would be involved. In Committee, he referred to the additional costs for training, the electronic notebook and the new post of custody officer. He said that the new code of practice would be about 200 pages long.
Although we relate the word "safeguard" to the code of practice and the various roles to be fulfilled by custody or review officers, I refer the House to a reply by the Under-Secretary to a question asked two days ago about the directions on entrapment that were given to the Metropolitan police. The Minister said that specific instructions on entrapment would be available to the

Metropolitan police. A Conservative Member asked the Home Secretary what guarantee he could give that the code of practice would be followed. He replied that he could not give such a guarantee. The safeguards and code of practice written into the Bill do not suggest that civil liberties will be safeguarded. There will be much heart-searching on this later when people find themselves in police custody, are confronted with the custody officer and the rigmarole of regulations and are as confused and confounded as they will be in those circumstances.
The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), whose perception of the Bill derives from 20 years at the Bar and a knowledge of what happens in the real world when people are incarcerated by the police, made it clear that he intended to match his eloquence with Ms courage and to vote against the Bill. On Report, he quoted Martin Luther King's comment:
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
That was part of a speech on 28 August 1963 at the Abraham Lincoln memorial in Washington. I believe that, whenever we seek to define a human right, we reduce that right because we take something away from the subject and his liberty. In the same speech, Martin Luther King referred to the symphony of the brotherhood of man—there is certainly very little of that in the Bill.
Constituents who are incarcerated without charge will have a tale to tell when they are released, as will those whose property is entered and searched without a warrant. Those who are stopped and searched or subjected to road checks will also have a tale to tell, as will those who fall within the ambit of the "serious arrestable offence". Those on whom is cast the veil of "reasonable suspicion" which pervades the Bill will also have a tale to tell. It was in 1610 that John Donne wrote:
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.
This Bill tolls for the egalitarianism in society in which we believe, as opposed to authoritarianism. It tolls for liberties that are known, understood and enjoyed by all now. It tolls for future generations who will be brought up to acquiesce in a society that takes as a matter of course 96 hours' detention without charge, systematic road checks and entry and search without warrant. The House will come to rue the day that the Bill is passed and to look forward to its repeal.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: I am afraid that I have not earned a fifty-niner badge as I was not a member of the Standing Committee, but I have read all that was said in Committee. I should make it clear at the outset that I shall not be tramping through the Government Lobby with a spring in my step. This is not a wonderful or even particularly good Bill, but it is now a perfectly adequate one. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was right when he said that the Bill seeks to maintain a balance between safeguards and powers. By and large, that balance has been achieved, although it sometimes wobbles off course, as I shall describe later.
To give credit where it is due, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) whose speeches I have read and listened to intently, has achieved a great deal from the Government. If he will forgive my saying so, however, I wish that he would try to prevent the reflex action of his foot, which seems to edge its way towards the groin of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home


Secretary. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman tries very hard to control his foot—one sees him quivering at the Dispatch Box with the effort—but then off it goes all the same.
I am sure that the right hon. Member for Gorton, in his heart of hearts, accepts that this is not an obnoxious Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) rightly said that we needed clarity in the law. Citizens must know the offences with which they are charged and the constituents of those offences. Having practised in the criminal courts for the past seven years, I know that some areas of the criminal law are a complete mess. The Government deserve credit for clarifying the law on stop and search. I am sure that Opposition Members do not really believe that the Bill represents the "bell tolling" for democracy and the liberty of the individual. The liberties of the individual have a far better chance of being protected than before as a result of some aspects of the Bill.
The law on confessions, too, has been a mess for years. At last, clause 69 makes the position clear. All the case law has been brought together and properly clarified. It is clear that confessions will be excluded if they are not given voluntarily. Further, there is the new, common-sense aspect of "unreliability". My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was right to boast of those provisions as a great achievement by the Government.
I shall not go into detail about the stop-and-search provisions, but the Government were right to add a provision stating that the police must not take advantage of the present situation by stopping a car on the pretext of dealing with excise licensing matters or traffic offences. That provision must be especially welcomed.
Sadly, however, great opportunities have been allowed to slip through our fingers. Having read Hansard and discussed these matters with Members on both sides of the House, I believe that one message must ring loud and clear in the Government's mind. The House and the public at large will not put up with the present operation of section 32 of the Sexual Offences Act. It is utterly unacceptable that police officers should act in any way as agents provocateurs. I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State about the code of conduct and the steps to be taken on this matter. I hope that the Government will consider this most carefully and perhaps introduce legislation along the lines suggested by the Opposition.
Another major lost opportunity—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that on Third Reading hon. Members must confine their remarks to what is in the Bill rather than saying what they believe ought to be in it.

Mr. Hayes: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I intended to mention the provisions of new clause 10.
It is appalling that, in a democracy such as ours, a court of law can admit evidence that has been unlawfully obtained. There is certainly food for thought there. I draw attention again to the view of the Lord Chief Justice in the case mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) yesterday. The view of the Lord Chief Justice in 1978 rings true today. He said:

It was open to Justices to apply their discretion and to decline to allow evidence to be given if it had been obtained by police officers by trickery, oppressive conduct, unfairly or as a result of behaviour which was morally reprehensible.
The Government should have another think about that.
I am especially concerned about two aspects of the Bill. First, on the question of detention for 96 hours without charge, it is sad that we always seem to need to look to Scotland for better laws. I sincerely hope that the Government will reconsider this aspect. The concessions on the 24-hour limit are welcome. The 96-hour provision, however, will work against the police, because, if a person has been detained for that length of time without being charged and without the opportunity to see a solicitor, nine times out of 10 a robust judge or a sensible jury will simply throw out any confession made in those circumstances. The provision will not assist the police and I hope that the Government will reconsider it.
My final anxiety follows the lines of the thoughtful and sensible speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). It is ludicrous that police officers cannot make intimate searches of suspects for drugs or articles which are likely to cause injury to a member of the public. Customs officers have that power. I have defended and prosecuted many people. In one case, the only evidence against the defendant, who was charged with stealing a motor vehicle, was that he had hidden the keys up his back passage. The police, noticing that he was walking peculiarly, searched him. It is ludicrous that we should now ask the police to investigate crimes without that power. [Interruption.] I must be short, so I shall not give way.

Mr. Corbett: The hon. Gentleman is short.

Mr. Hayes: I have heard of a ready wit, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell the House when his is ready.
It is ludicrous that customs officers should have that power but that police officers should not. The Minister hates to admit it, but the truth of the matter is that the British Medical Association has the Government over a barrel. I hope that the Government will reconsider the matter. It is not a wonderful, nor even a particularly good, Bill. It is adequate, but it has a great deal of room for improvement. I shall support it—just.

Mr. James Wallace: Having listened to the misgivings of the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes), all I can say is that it is a pity that he does not see fit to follow the example of his hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby).
As my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said, the SDP-Liberal alliance shares those misgivings. We agree with some parts of the Bill, where the law has been codified and uncertainty removed. However, we are not satisfied with many of the important aspects, especially the powers of detention and stop and search. Even if the Bill brings greater certainty into the law than was there before, there is no merit in having put within a statutory framework a practice which is not wholly satisfactory.
The SDP-Liberal alliance will oppose the Bill. On Second Reading, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said that he hoped that the Bill would be sufficiently changed for him to support it on


Third Reading. He mentioned the areas which should be improved. We regret that there has not been sufficient improvement.
The provision that permits the police to set up road checks in areas where there is a regular pattern of crime is open to abuse. We are dissatisfied with the position regarding the definition and inclusion of journalistic material, and with the definition of "serious arrestable offence", which should be an objective test. Clearly we do not object to the part of the Bill which, under "serious arrestable offences", includes murder, manslaughter, rape, kidnapping and other clearly defined statutory offences. However, clause 105(6) includes an area where the police can use a subjective test and put a suspected citizen into a position of doubt. An example of that is an offence that would entail serious financial loss. Does that include a case in which a passer-by whips the widow's mite before she can put it in the bowl? It would be a serious financial loss to her, but is it a serious arrestable offence? That area lacks clarity.
I shall not repeat what was said yesterday about the powers of detention. It is wholly unacceptable that people can be detained for four days without charge, despite the Bill's safeguards. The Minister was happy to cite the Scottish example in justification for the stop-and-search powers, but he did not say why the Government were not prepared to consider the Scottish example on the powers of detention. The hon. Member for Harlow urged him to consider the Scottish approach to detention. I also urge that approach on him—albeit with a degree of Scottish bias.
We welcomed the Government's announcement yesterday that they would consider a code of practice for the stop and search powers. We cannot support the clause as it stands. It opens up the possibility of indiscriminate use of the power. The Police Studies Institute has cited a vast number of cases in which the present power was not used properly. There is no reason to believe that the position will be improved by the clause.
The Bill does not pass our test, nor does it pass the test set by the Home Secretary when he spoke today. He said that policing should be without discrimination and should seek co-operation. In Committee and on Report we expressed the fear that many communities could feel discriminated against by the application of the stop-and-search power and feel less inclined to co-operate with the police.
Policing will not necessarily be done with courtesy—yesterday the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) described the traumatic nature of an arrest—and, as the police must deal with difficult people, I do not blame them. It is not all nice Dixon of Dock Green stuff. Many of these powers will be used against innocent people. Therefore, the powers are not conducive to greater public confidence in or co-operation with the police.
Finally, the theme throughout our discussions has been to ensure balance between the powers necessary to enable the police to carry out their duties—to protect the peace and successfully investigate crime—and the fundamental rights of citizens, which this House has safeguarded for many centuries. The Bill does not achieve a proper balance. The reason for that was given away by the Secretary of State today. He said that the balance to be achieved was between the necessary powers for the police on the one hand and proper safeguards on the other. I interpret that as meaning that he sees the balance tilted

towards giving the police powers and finding safeguards to restrict those powers. My right hon. and hon. Friends believe that the civil rights of the citizen come first and foremost. The onus rests on the House to prove a case for removing those rights—albeit with proper safeguards.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) quoted from the 1929 report of the Royal Commission on police powers and procedure, and it is worth repeating. It states:
A policeman possesses few powers not enjoyed by the ordinary citizen and public opinion, expressed in Parliament and elsewhere, has shown great jealousy of any attempts to give increased authority to the police. This attitude is due we believe not to any distrust of the police as a body, but to an instinctive feeling that, as a matter of principle, they should have as few powers as possible which are not possessed by the ordinary citizen and that their authority should rest on the broad basis of consent and active co-operation of all law-abiding people."— [Official Report, Standing Committee E, 6 December1983, c. 212.]
That is an acceptable summary of the principle. We do not believe that the Government have struck the proper balance. Accordingly, we shall vote against the Bill.

Ms. Clare Short: This is a bad and unpopular Bill, and it is not good enough for the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) to try to explain away its unpopularity by saying that the public have been misguided. The public understand only too well what is being done, and they do not approve.
The Bill demonstrates the Government's misguided approach to law and order. There is no doubt that the British people are dissatisfied about how safe they feel at home and on the streets. My constituents want to feel more safe when walking along the streets and when they are at home, and they are extremely distressed by the many burglaries in the area and the lack of police attention to that crime. But we know from experience that the way to deal with the problem is not to throw massive resources and powers at the police. Since 1979, there has been a massive increase in Government spending on new equipment for the police, including riot shields, CS gas and plastic bullets, and many more policemen have been recruited. However, crime has also increased, and the increased expenditure has not resulted in greater security in areas such as mine.
Now the Government are trying to enlarge police powers on the excuse that the existing law is muddled. It is not good enough to say, as did the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes), that because the law has become muddled, anything that replaces it is better. Of course muddle is undesirable, but an enlargement of police powers is not an acceptable alternative. We can get rid of muddle and at the same time have acceptable levels of police power.
While mentioning the speech of the hon. Member for Harlow, may I tell him that everyone with whom I have discussed the Bill believes that the provisions for forcible internal body searches are the most disgraceful and disgusting parts of the legislation. I am shocked and surprised to hear him advocate an extension of those powers.
The Bill will cause an increase in hostility between the police and the public. Police with enlarged powers in areas such as mine will push people round, arrest them and stop and search them in increasing numbers. They will put up more road blocks, and especially in the poorer inner city


areas they will cause more conflict, more aggro on the streets, and more uncertainty and fear for the elderly who live in those areas. The Bill will bring about exactly the opposite of what the Government claim it will.
We should have learnt from the mistakes of the Government. Since 1979, they have thrown money and resources at the police, but have achieved nothing. We need a different remedy. Some of the best experiments in policing point to a different remedy: getting the community and those who police it closer together, and to know, trust and respect each other. The police alone cannot deal with crime or make our communities safe. They have an important role, but the most important policing force is the community. If it is bound together, trusts its police and tries to look after everyone on the streets and in their homes, that is how we shall achieve law and order. It is a tragedy for all of us that we are moving in the opposite direction. It is especially a tragedy in areas such as mine, where people wish to live in harmony and security.
It is no accident that the new powers are being introduced when we have record youth unemployment and not long after we had riots in the inner cities. It is the first time in my lifetime that such riots occurred under a Government who claimed to be improving law and order. Most of my constituents and many of those who are worried about the Bill believe that there is increasing alienation in society, increasing poverty and unemployment, and a massive increase in police power, so that the police will become a repressive force, holding down the people who might wish to rebel and protest against what is happening to them. That is the political context as seen by many people outside the House, and I believe that they are right.
In Committee and today my right hon. and hon. Friends have drawn attention to many objectionable provisions of the Bill. The most disgraceful is the provision that people can be held for questioning for four days. The Government's attempts to claim that this is simply a tidying-up measure that does not change the basic provisions of the British legal system are dishonest and misleading. Whatever the abuses of the past, our tradition is clear: each and every one of us is free to go anywhere, to walk around and to be at liberty, unless there is evidence that he has committed a crime. Only in those circumstances can we be deprived of our liberty and be arrested.
The assumption behind all the provisions of our law and of police power is that the police have no right to question suspects. The right of silence protects our liberty not to be questioned. Traditionally, a confession was admissible only because it was thought that if someone voluntarily said something against his interests, it must have some importance. The provisions that people can be detained for questioning for four days turns that tradition on its head. We are now moving to the dangerous position of saying to the police, "If you have a vague hunch that someone has done something, you can pick him up, hold him for a long time and interrogate him." That is a dangerous and regrettable shift in our traditional legal system. It is disreputable for the Government to pretent that this is not a major change but is simply tidying past practice. What they are doing is legitimising past malpractice.
The Bill attempts to entrench the processes of consultation that Lord Scarman recommended after the Brixton riots. But that is an inadequate method of local control over local police. The real safeguard would be for local people, through democratically elected representatives, to control the actions and behaviour of their local police force. That is supposed to be part of the British tradition, which says that the police are of the community and should police the community in the way that the community wishes. The outrage expressed by Conservative Members about the proposal that the police should be controlled by democratically elected local people shows how narrow their notion of democracy is. Democracy must mean more than one vote every five years to bring in an enormously powerful central Government who can do anything. Democracy is a system by which people can have their say, express their fears and have the system which controls their lives adjusted to those fears over time.
A final example to show how far we have gone from that tradition of local control is the way in which someone has been able to summon police officers from all forces in the land to the Nottinghamshire coalfield, without the local people whose police they are supposed to be being consulted. Many policemen from Liverpool are in Nottinghamshire at present, and the Liverpool police committee has said, "We do not want them there and we will not pay for them." We claim that we do not have a national police force, but that is the way we are going — a national, centralised police force with massive powers and expenditure. It is not the way to achieve law and order, nor is it the way towards a happy and peaceful society.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: As the Bill comes before the House on Third Reading I am sure it contains much that is necessary and right and that should be supported, but my right hon. and hon. Friends know that there is one matter which concerns me and hon. Members representing inner London—the growth in the traffic in heroin, which is of concern in Kensington in particular. This is too serious a matter for Ministers to adopt a namby-pamby approach to it.
Ministers know that I and other hon. Members are worried about the provisions of the Bill in regard to intimate body searches. I am sure that the Home Office has not given this matter sufficient attention. The Bill should be changed before it passes into law. Therefore, sadly I shall not be able to support the Government in the Lobby this evening. Naturally, I shall not vote against the Bill, but I shall have to register my protest by abstention.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: I have been involved with the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill in one form or another for the past 18 months. Despite the efforts of my hon. Friends and myself it is still a bad Bill. It was a bad Bill when it was introduced in the last Parliament and it was still a bad Bill when it was reintroduced in this Parliament following the election.
The Government claim that there have been a number of concessions. The Home Secretary spent a great deal of time in his speech making just that point and claiming credit for concessions that had been won from the Government almost entirely by the efforts of the


Opposition in Standing Committee in both Sessions of Parliament. Of course, those concessions have made some improvement to the Bill, but it is our contention that they have not improved it nearly enough. It is still a bad Bill.
Before I deal with the details of the Bill and with why it is bad, may I on behalf of the Labour Opposition give our thanks to the organisations and individuals who were very helpful to us, especially during the Committee stages. I single out in particular the National Council for Civil Liberties, which provided a great deal of assistance to us on this complicated piece of legislation. I also mention the GLC police support unit, the Children's Legal Centre, the British Medical Association and the Police Federation, which was very helpful in its briefing. I also thank Justice and the Law Society. I hope I have not failed to mention others who were particularly helpful.
The proceedings in Standing Committee were protracted, because we gave the Bill as much detailed scrutiny as we could. As we have virtually finished consideration of the Bill in this House, I seek to apply to it seven tests. By each of the tests the Bill fails.
The first test is whether it will help the police to catch criminals. Because the Bill will lessen co-operation between the police and the public, it will reduce the willingness of young people, particularly young blacks in inner-city areas, to co-operate with the police in catching criminals. It will make the task of the police more difficult and the crime rate will not be helped.
My second test is whether the police want the Bill. There has been disagreement in the earlier part of the debate as to the views of the Police Federation. I have here an extract from a document sent to all members of the Standing Committee by the Police Federation. The first sentence, under the heading,
A Bill for all seasons?",
said:
It is an understatement to say that the Police Federation is disappointed with the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill.
That was hardly a statement of support. The document continues:
This is a Bill which, whilst it seeks to simplify and codify existing law or practice, is likely to create almost as many problems as it seeks to solve.
I put those two quotations directly from the Police Federation's own document against the view attributed to the Police Federation by the hon. Member for Bury St., Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). It seems that the Police Federation is, at best, not ecstatic about the Bill as it stands.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Those words were written in the context of the Police Federation's passionate concern that the Bill would not deal with discipline problems. Since then, it has been amended so that it does. Many of the Police Federation's criticisms remain, as I have said, but its broad view is that the Bill must go on the statute book.

Mr. Dubs: The two quotations that I read out to the House hardly seem to be confined to the one narrow aspect of the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I read the introductory sentence of the Police Federation document and I can only come to the conclusion that the Police Federation is not too enthusiastic about the Bill.
I should like also to quote the view of the National Council of Civil Liberties:
The Bill fails in its main objective to clarify the powers of an accountable police force and prevent abuses. This failure will lead to a further deterioration in police-community relations and lack of confidence in policing in this country.

There the NCCL put its finger precisely on the point.
My third test as to the effectiveness of the Bill is whether it represents a scheme clearly thought our by the Home Office. Despite 18 months' deliberation and many goes at it, we have in the last two days on Report still had some 250 Home Office amendments; that is hardly a sign that the Bill reflected the clearly thought-out conclusions of the Home Office. I put it to the Home Secretary that if the House were to reject the Bill and if we were to go through the whole process again, we would again have to make hundreds of changes and hundreds of amendments would be coming from the Home Office at a late stage.
My fourth criterion is whether the Bill reflects the direct views and recommendations of the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure. Clearly it does not. In many respects the Government for their own reasons have decided to come to conclusions different from those of the Roy al Commission.
The fifth test is whether the Bill effectively clarifies the law and in particular achieves the right balance between statute law and common law. Again it is my contention that by this test the Bill fails.
The sixth test is whether the Bill protects the civil liberties of the citizen—surely a worthwhile aim for any piece of legislation affecting the powers of the police. It is clear to almost everyone who has examined it that the Bill fails to protect the civil liberties of the citizen.
The seventh test is whether, after all the exposure through the media of what the Bill is about, the public are enthusiastic or clear about wanting the Bill. My view, based upon discussions with many people, attendance at many public meetings and an examination of letters from constituents, is that the public do not want the Bill. During the 18 months that we have been discussing the legislation, I have not had one letter in support of the Bill from any member of the public. On the contrary, I have had many letters and representations expressing the most widespread concern about what the Bill will do.
I want to pick out briefly some of the main criticisms of the Bill, although I shall not necessarily deal with them in order of significance. The power to stop and search, which was discussed in detail in the House yesterday, is one provision which will lessen the willingness of the public to co-operate with the police and which will have a particularly damaging effect on the attitude of young people, especially young blacks. It will do nothing at all to make our streets safer.
A very draconian power is being given to the police to set up road blocks in virtually any inner-city area they choose. Many hon. Members are most concerned about this provision which, when used, will lead to many complaints to hon. Members by members of the public who do not like it.
Perhaps the single most onerous feature of the Bill is the provision to hold people in detention without charge for 96 hours. We should all regret this as a feature of the law in a country that traditionally has prided itself on its civil liberties. The pretext for having this power is to allow the collection of evidence or for people to be held for four days for questioning. Few people other than hardened criminals would not give in after anything approaching four days of questioning. Few people other than hardened criminals are likely to resist that form of coercive questioning, as experience has shown in police station


after police station. They would rather sign a confession statement than put up with being held in those circumstances.
Moreover, the 96-hour provision effectively denies the right of habeas corpus to our citizens. It effectively means that we have said goodbye to habeas corpus after the many hundreds of years in which that has been a basic safeguard of our civil liberties. The provision for intimate body searches includes the intimate body searches of children. Surely that is something which no hon. Member would willingly see happen.
The state of the law on admissibility of confessions in the courts is tangled. The Government have refused to allow the courts to throw out confessions obtained illegally or improperly. The system of police complaints will leave the police investigating complaints against themselves. That is something which most members of the public do not accept and do not like. They will not be taken in by the small step forward of having independent supervision of complaints rather than independent investigation of complaints.
Of course, we welcome one or two features of the Bill. We welcome the fact that the Home Secretary has given a commitment that he will bring forward an independent public prosecutor system. I question whether, if we had an independent public prosecutor, the decision of the police to prosecute coal miners for riot would ever have gone ahead. I welcome taking such decisions out of the hands of the police, because it means that we will not have the sort of draconian incursion into the law that we saw in Nottingham only the other day.
The Bill will make a major impact on the public. Most members of the public will be aware of that. They will be aware of the changes if the Bill goes through the other place in its present form. Those will be changes for the worse. I hate a great deal of what is in the Bill because of the effect that it will have on many of our fellow citizens. Of course, the reason for the Government's action is their fear of what the unemployed of Britain have to say.

Mr. Brittan: That is absurd.

Mr. Dubs: My most dramatic memory of the election campaign is talking to a young black man in his early twenties who said that he was going out of his mind with boredom. He had nothing to do and was unable to find a job. No wonder there are threats of riots. The unemployed do not want to stand for unemployment any longer. That is why the Government, in their fear, are bringing forward a Bill with these measures. I am happy to reiterate the commitment given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) that the next Labour Government will repeal this nasty piece of legislation.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Let me take this opportunity to thank all my hon. Friends who soldiered on in Committee and to whose help the Bill owes a great deal. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Chiselhurst (Mr. Sims) that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State met representatives of the

Justices Clerks Society yesterday and discussed with them the point that he raised. My hon. Friend has promised further consultation on the mechanics of implementation, and I shall write to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) reasonably asked about a training programme. A general and specialised programme will be needed. We are consulting the Association of Chief Police Officers about a standard training package, and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is doing the same. It is not yet possible to say exactly what training will be involved or what it will cost. The implementation of different parts of the Bill will be phased to take account of training needs and the resources available.
We come now close to the end of a long story which began on 30 November 1982 when the first version of the Bill had its Second Reading. Historians will remark clearly the contrast between the storm which beat upon the first Bill, of which my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General bore the brunt so gallantly, and the relative quiet which accompanied the passage of the second Bill. That was partly as a result of changes introduced by my noble Friend Lord Whitelaw to reassure doctors, social workers and other professions who wrongly believed that there confidential records were at risk, and partly because of the changes made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary when he took office. However, basically we have kept the balance of the Bill intact.
People have come to know more about what is in the Bill and what is not. The GLC and others have done their best to frustrate understanding. They have continued to churn out pamphlets and campaign buttons. There has been the most elaborate and futile campaign of misrepresentation that London has seen since the days of Titus Oates and the Popish plot. It has not worked. The streets are empty. The mood is calm. The campaign has flopped. It is left to the London ratepayers to pick up the bill. The proof of that is in the conduct of Labour Members in Committee and on Report. I do not want to shop those hon. Members, but, if they believed all the rubbish that the GLC was putting out, they would have handled the matter quite differently. They must have been a sad disappointment to those who were egging them on. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Will the right hon. Gentleman continue, please?

Mr. Hurd: One could not have a more vivid demonstration of the point that I have just been making than that demonstration in the Strangers Gallery.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has a predicament. I understand that he has to give a different account of the proceedings and a grossly exaggerated account of his achievements. What happened in Committee is what ought to happen in Committee. We listened carefully. We responded where we could to sensible comment. The impression given by the right hon. Gentleman, that we were forced to yield and to make concessions, when we had a majority both in Committee and in the House, is obviously absurd. We were conscious of the concessions already made and of the need not to overload the police. We were not willing to win an easy


cheer or two by concessions on, for example, the detention timetable. That would, in our judgment, have seriously prejudiced the ability of the police to protect the public.
I hope that the Bill will achieve its Third Reading. We shall then have a continuing task in explaining what is and what is not in the Bill and putting across some simple points. The Bill does not encourage random stop and search. It extends the power to offensive weapons, and that must be right because it will make our streets safer. The safeguards in the Bill should rule out the random stop and search about which hon. Members have been properly exercised.
The Bill does not give any new power to set up road checks. Rather it regulates and introduces safeguards for part of a power which already exists. The Bill does not establish 96 hours as the norm for detention without charge. For the first time, it fixes an absolute maximum of 96 hours. For the first time, it provides a timetable of ever more strenuous tests which the police have to meet if they are to hold a person, including two separate sessions before magistrates courts. I have quoted precise examples of serious crimes where investigations and questioning have needed to go on for two or three days for good and genuine reasons. The critics of the provision have not faced that point, but we have to face it. We are not prepared to take the risk of telling the police that they must bring investigation and questioning to an end within 24 or 48 hours. What we do say is that the police have to satisfy a magistrates court that further detention is necessary. It would have been easy in parliamentary terms to reduce the timetable of detention and it would have given us a smoother passage — it might even have secured the vote of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), although that cannot be certain—but that would have been a bit too easy and a good deal too dangerous.
On the positive side, the Bill includes three major reforms which, in our slightly absurd world, are less noticed because they are less controversial. We have reformed the complaints procedure. A new authority will provide independent supervision of the investigation of complaints. We have introduced tape recording of interviews in police stations and provided for consultations between the police and the community throughout the country. Each of those reforms would have been worth a Bill in more leisurely times.
When the pamphlets are pulped and the speeches forgotten, this will be seen as solid, sensible and necessary legislation. I am glad, looking back, that we had a record number of Committee sittings. I am glad that we secured the Bill in Committee without a guillotine, and without a single Government defeat. The Bill clears away cobwebs in this part of our law. It gives the police the powers that they need to defeat crime, and it surrounds those powers with the safeguards for the individual on which the House and this Government should always insist.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 190.

Division No. 303]
[7.09 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Alison, Rt Hon Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Amery, Rt Hon Julian





Amess, David
Fletcher, Alexander


Ancram, Michael
Fookes, Miss Janet


Arnold, Tom
Forman, Nigel


Aspinwall, Jack
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Forth, Eric


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Fox, Marcus


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Franks, Cecil


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Baldry, Anthony
Gale, Roger


Batiste, Spencer
Galley, Roy


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Beggs, Roy
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bellingham, Henry
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bendall, Vivian
Goodlad, Alastair


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Gorst, John


Benyon, William
Gow, Ian


Berry, Sir Anthony
Gower, Sir Raymond


Best, Keith
Grant, Sir Anthony


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Greenway, Harry


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gregory, Conal


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Body, Richard
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Grist, Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Ground, Patrick


Bottomley, Peter
Grylls, Michael


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gummer, John Selwyn


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hanley, Jeremy


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hannam, John


Braine, Sir Bernard
Harris, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Harvey, Robert


Brinton, Tim
Haselhurst, Alan


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Browne, John
Hawksley, Warren


Bruinvels, Peter
Hayes, J.


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hayhoe, Barney


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hayward, Robert


Buck, Sir Antony
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Budgen, Nick
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bulmer, Esmond
Heddle, John


Butler, Hon Adam
Henderson, Barry


Butterfill, John
Hickmet, Richard


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Hicks, Robert


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hill, James


Cash, William
Hind, Kenneth


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hirst, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'tn)


Churchill, W. S.
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Holt, Richard


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hooson, Tom


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hordern, Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howard, Michael


Cockeram, Eric
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'Idford)


Conway, Derek
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Coombs, Simon
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Cope, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Corrie, John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Couchman, James
Hunter, Andrew


Cranborne, Viscount
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Critchley, Julian
Irving, Charles


Crouch, David
Jackson, Robert


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jessel, Toby


Dorrell, Stephen
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dunn, Robert
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Eggar, Tim
Key, Robert


Emery, Sir Peter
King, Rt Hon Tom


Evennett, David
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Knox, David


Fallon, Michael
Lamont, Norman


Farr, John
Latham, Michael


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lawler, Geoffrey


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lawrence, Ivan






Lee, John (Pendle)
Powley, John


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Price, Sir David


Lester, Jim
Prior, Rt Hon James


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Lightbown, David
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Lilley, Peter
Rathbone, Tim


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Luce, Richard
Renton, Tim


Lyell, Nicholas
Rhodes James, Robert


McCrindle, Robert
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


MacGregor, John
Rifkind, Malcolm


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Maclean, David John
Rost, Peter


Madel, David
Rowe, Andrew


Maginnis, Ken
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Major, John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Malins, Humfrey
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Malone, Gerald
Shersby, Michael


Maples, John
Sims, Roger


Marland, Paul
Skeet, T. H. H.


Marlow, Antony
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mather, Carol
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Maude, Hon Francis
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Speed, Keith


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Speller, Tony


Mellor, David
Spencer, Derek


Merchant, Piers
Squire, Robin


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Stanley, John


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Stokes, John


Moate, Roger
Stradling Thomas, J.


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Monro, Sir Hector
Temple-Morris, Peter


Montgomery, Fergus
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Moore, John
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Murphy, Christopher
Thurnham, Peter


Neale, Gerrard
Trippier, David


Needham, Richard
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Nelson, Anthony
Waddington, David


Neubert, Michael
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Newton, Tony
Walden, George


Nicholls, Patrick
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Onslow, Cranley
Walters, Dennis


Oppenheim, Philip
Ward, John


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Watts, John


Osborn, Sir John
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Ottaway, Richard
Wheeler, John


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Whitney, Raymond


Patten, John (Oxford)
Wiggin, Jerry


Pattie, Geoffrey
Wolfson, Mark


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Yeo, Tim


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Pollock, Alexander



Porter, Barry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Mr. Ian Lang and


Powell, William (Corby)
Mr. Archie Hamilton.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Benn, Tony


Alton, David
Bermingham, Gerald


Anderson, Donald
Blair, Anthony


Ashby, David
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Ashdown, Paddy
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Bruce, Malcolm


Barnett, Guy
Buchan, Norman


Barron, Kevin
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Campbell, Ian


Beith, A. J.
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Bell, Stuart
Canavan, Dennis





Carter-Jones, Lewis
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clarke, Thomas
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Clay, Robert
Loyden, Edward


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
McCartney, Hugh


Cohen, Harry
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Coleman, Donald
McGuire, Michael


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Conlan, Bernard
Maclennan, Robert


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
McNamara, Kevin


Corbett, Robin
McTaggart, Robert


Corbyn, Jeremy
Madden, Max


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Marek, Dr John


Craigen, J. M.
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Crowther, Stan
Martin, Michael


Cunningham, Dr John
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Dalyell, Tam
Maxton, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Meacher, Michael


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Michie, William


Deakins, Eric
Mikardo, Ian


Dewar, Donald
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dixon, Donald
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dobson, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dormand, Jack
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Douglas, Dick
Nellist, David


Dubs, Alfred
O'Brien, William


Duffy, A. E. P.
O'Neill, Martin


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Eadie, Alex
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Eastham, Ken
Park, George


Ellis, Raymond
Parry, Robert


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Patchett, Terry


Fatchett, Derek
Pavitt, Laurie


Faulds, Andrew
Pendry, Tom


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Penhaligon, David


Fisher, Mark
Pike, Peter


Flannery, Martin
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Prescott, John


Forrester, John
Radice, Giles


Foster, Derek
Randall, Stuart


Foulkes, George
Redmond, M.


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Richardson, Ms Jo


Freud, Clement
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Garrett, W. E.
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


George, Bruce
Rooker, J. W.


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Gourlay, Harry
Rowlands, Ted


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Sheerman, Barry


Hardy, Peter
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Harman, Ms Harriet
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Skinner, Dennis


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Home Robertson, John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Snape, Peter


Howells, Geraint
Soley, Clive


Hoyle, Douglas
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Stott, Roger


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Straw, Jack


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Janner, Hon Greville
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


John, Brynmor
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Wallace, James


Kennedy, Charles
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Wareing, Robert


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Weetch, Ken


Kirkwood, Archibald
Welsh, Michael


Lambie, David
White, James


Lamond, James
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Leadbitter, Ted
Wilson, Gordon


Leighton, Ronald
Winnick, David


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Woodall, Alec






Wrigglesworth, Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


Young, David (Bolton SE)
Mr. Frank Haynes and



Mr. Allen McKay.

Questions accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Hong Kong

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Foreign Secretary, I should tell the House that I have a very long list of right hon. and hon. Members, including six Privy Councillors, who wish to take part in the important debate on Hong Kong. I have no power to control the length of speeches, but if right hon. and hon. Members will limit their speeches to about 10 minutes each, fewer hon. Members will be disappointed than would otherwise be the case.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I am very glad that we have the opportunity to debate the important question of the future of Hong Kong. It is a matter of prime concern to the Government and to right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House, many of whom have visited the territory and know it well. For that reason, I have no need to recall in detail the unique conjunction of history and geography that has fashioned Hong Kong. Over almost a century and a half, a diverse community has grown and flourished there. British administration, in partnership with Chinese energy and creativity, has secured for Hong Kong an economic influence in the world out of all proportion to its size.
Anyone who has visited one of the thriving new towns in which literally millions of Hong Kong people have made their homes and are making their lives will have been moved, as I was, by feeling the powerful sense of community and vitality that prevails there. They will have been reminded vividly of our responsibility for the future of that unique society.
Inescapably, that future has to be seen against the background of the one all-important fact that 92 per cent. of the land area is held under a lease which expires in 1997. That reality, which no one can ignore, means that the future of Hong Kong is inseparably bound up with the great and historic nation that is China.
In that situation, the future of a unique society calls for a unique solution. That is why we have for the last 8 months been engaged with the Chinese Government in the task of exploring what arrangements can best secure the future of the territory. Perhaps the most encouraging feature of this joint endeavour is that the two Governments share a common objective — reaching an agreement which will ensure the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong. The Chinese Government have many times made it clear that that is their purpose. And it is, of course, our own.
The outcome of those negotiations will affect most of all the people of Hong Kong. It is natural that they should be anxious, and I fully understand their very real concern.
Many hon. Members will have heard something of that for themselves from the two groups from Hong Kong who are now in London. Many will have met the delegation of Unofficial Members of Hong Kong's Executive and Legislative Councils. I had a long discussion with them yesterday evening. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the very important contribution that the Unofficial Members of the two Councils make, in their different ways, to the administration and the life of Hong Kong.
The Unofficial Members of the Executive Council in particular play an important dual role. On the one hand, they are close advisers of the Governor; and, on the other, they, together with their colleagues in the Legislative Council, understandably seek to express their understanding of the wishes and concerns of the people of Hong Kong to a wider public, including, of course, hon. Members. It was in that latter, independent, capacity that they associated themselves with the statement that I understand has been sent to all hon. Members. The House will readily understand—but I wish to place the matter absolutely beyond doubt—that that statement was issued entirely on their own initiative. Its terms were not the subject of any prior consultation with the Government, either in London or in Hong Kong. To put it plainly, they were exercising the right of free speech.
Discussions on Hong Kong's future dominated the visits to Peking and Hong Kong which I undertook last month. My visit to Peking lasted from 15 to 18 April. My aim there was to review the course of the negotiations so far and to give them a new impetus at ministerial level. I held talks with the Chinese Foreign Minister Wu Xueqian, with State Counsellor Ji Pengfei, head of the Hong Kong and Macao office of the State Council, with Premier Zhao Ziyang and with Chairman Deng Xiaoping. By far the greatest part of the talks was spent in serious and detailed discussion of all aspects of the future of Hong Kong. The meetings were businesslike and the atmosphere good.
I went on to Hong Kong and held discussions with the Governor and the Unofficial Members of the Executive and Legislative Councils. That was my fifth meeting, but my first in Hong Kong, with members of the Executive Council. I also met representatives of a wide range of local opinion, including members of the urban council and the district boards, and of the business community.
In Hong Kong, my purpose was not only to consult, but to explain the way in which the Government are approaching the present negotiations on Hong Kong's future. That I did in a public statement on 20 April. Copies have, of course, been deposited in the Library.
The House will understand why it was not possible then, and would not be right now, for me to go into detail about the content of our negotiations with the Chinese Government. The negotiations are still in progress. Both sides are agreed that they must remain confidential. I do, of course, appreciate the difficulties that that need for confidentiality poses for hon. Members and even more for the people of Hong Kong. I have no doubt that confidentiality is important for their success, and I believe that what I was able to say in Hong Kong and can tell the House tonight will allow discussion on the future to be conducted on a reasonably informed basis.
Let me describe to the House the basis of our approach. I have no doubt that it was right to express in Hong Kong my clear conclusion that it would not be realistic to think of an agreement that provided for continued British administration in Hong Kong after 1997. It was right for us to explore every possibility before coming to that conclusion, but it is a conclusion which emerges inescapably from the negotiations and, most of all, from the reality that I have explained—the expiry, only 13 years hence, of the lease over 92 per cent. of the territory. In those circumstances, we concluded that it would be

right to concentrate on other ways of securing the assurances necessary for continuity of Hong Kong's stability, prosperity and way of life.
That brings me to the key question of continuity. The Chinese Government have made it clear publicly that they recognise the special circumstances of Hong Kong, and that they want its social and economic systems and lifestyle — in many ways so different from those of mainland China—to remain unchanged. They have also underlined their recognition that Hong Kong should continue as a separate entity within the international economic and trading community. Those points were reaffirmed only yesterday by Premier Zhao Ziyang when he addressed the National People's Congress in Peking. We share with the Chinese Government the strongest possible common interest in these objectives. Our approach to the talks has, therefore, been to examine with the Government of China how it might be possible to arrive at arrangements that would secure for Hong Kong after 1997 a high degree of autonomy under Chinese sovereignty and that would preserve the way of life of Hong Kong, together with the essentials of the present systems.
It is important to understand the high degree of autonomy now exercised by the Hong Kong Government. Decisions affecting the day-to-day life of Hong Kong are taken in Hong Kong, not by Her Majesty's Government in London. I cannot emphasise too strongly the fact that Her Majesty's Government do not, and will not, look on Hong Kong as a source of revenue. Decisions affecting Hong Kong, its economy, its taxes, its land and the management of its currency, are taken in and by Hong Kong.
The widespread confidence in Hong Kong which today prevails springs very largely from that autonomy. If confidence is to be maintained, the people of Hong Kong, as well as Governments and investors around the world, need an assurance that this autonomy will be preserved after 1997. That assurance can best be provided by a detailed and binding agreement, between British and Chinese Governments, which plainly and fully sets out the arrangements for the future.
I can understand the real concern in Hong Kong about the idea that two distinct political and economic systems, the socialism of the People's Republic of China and the free market system of Hong Kong, might coexist under a single sovereignty. It is my belief that the Chinese Government share the desire of Her Majesty's Government to see the continuation in Hong Kong of a society which enjoys its own economic and social systems and distinct way of life. It is, of course, the case that Hong Kong has not existed in the past—could not indeed have survived for any substantial length of time—in a state of hostility with China. It is in this context that the Chinese Government have evolved the unique and imaginative concept, which Chairman Deng Xiaoping himself described to me, of "two systems within one nation."
It is against that background that it is possible to foresee a situation in which Hong Kong would, as part of China, enjoy a high degree of autonomy which would last for at least 50 years from 1997.
In such a situation, that autonomy would extend to administration, the maintenance and making of laws—including the common law system—the continuation of Hong Kong's own long-established and familiar system of justice and responsibility for public order in the territory.


Under such arrangements, the laws of Hong Kong would be based upon the present system and existing freedoms would be maintained. Hong Kong would manage its own public finances. There would be a place for outside people, from Britain and elsewhere, to go on making a contribution to life in Hong Kong.
Hong Kong's role as an international financial and commercial centre is of particular importance for its prosperity. This depends upon maintaining its present openness to the world and its extensive and direct economic relationship with its trading partners. Arrangements would need to be made, in co-operation with the other countries concerned, to ensure that Hong Kong remained an important participant in regional and world economic organisations, such as the Asian Development Bank and, in particular, the general agreement on tariffs and trade—GATT. We are fully aware of the crucial importance for Hong Kong's trading activity of its status in the latter organisation and indeed of its ability to manage its international economic relations as a whole.
In the same context, it is essential to maintain an independent Hong Kong dollar, which would, as now, circulate freely as an internationally covertible currency. That convertibility is indeed a key element in Hong Kong's prosperity. It must be underpinned by really effective confidence.
The people of Hong Kong are, naturally enough, asking for assurances that continuity and confidence will be maintained. Neither in Hong Kong nor anywhere else in today's troubled world can any Government give a cast-iron assurance about the future, but certainly we need to do all that we can to meet Hong Kong's concerns.
That underlines the importance of our objective: a binding international agreement in which arrangements for Hong Kong's continuing prosperity and stability, based on substantial autonomy, would be formally recorded. We are looking for the clarity and the detail which is essential to give confidence to all those affected by the agreement, in Hong Kong and elsewhere.
The success of such an agreement can never, as I have said, be absolutely guaranteed. Nor do I believe that it would be realistic to try to impose an external regulator on the freedom of the two sovereign states concerned. But history shows that international obligations are most likely to be observed when they coincide with the common interests of both parties. That is certainly the case over Hong Kong. Equally, these obligations are most likely to be observed when those two parties already enjoy good relations with each other. The fact that these good relations exist was brought home to me in Peking. In discussion of general international issues, I was struck by the number of subjects on which the British and Chinese Governments share similar views.
At the conclusion of the negotiations over Hong Kong, if we are able to bring them to a successful conclusion, the international prestige of both countries would be at stake. The Chinese Government, like our own, attach the highest importance to their country's international reputation. Moreover, we would share a clear common interest that Hong Kong should continue to flourish. That would be an important additional incentive to maintain the agreement.
That brings me to the question of the acceptability of an agreement to the people of Hong Kong. Throughout our negotiations with the Chinese Government, our consultation with the people of Hong Kong has been — and

remains — a continuous process. It has taken many forms: our close contact with the Executive Council, ministerial visits to the territory, the reception of delegations in London and attention to the views and opinions which reach the Hong Kong Government through many channels. The views expressed by the Hong Kong people will continue to be taken fully into account in our approach to the negotiations. This process of consultation has been intensified since my visit to the territory. We shall continue to use and develop methods of carrying it forward which are appropriate to each stage of the negotiations.
There has been some suggestion that a referendum might have a part to play. On that, I have to say that there are very real drawbacks. Whatever method is adopted, when the time comes for the House to debate the draft agreement, the people of Hong Kong will have had a full opportunity to make their views known. It is their future and livelihood that are at stake. They have a right to know as soon as possible what arrangements will apply in Hong Kong after 1997.
In particular, I understand the concerns of the British nationals in Hong Kong—the great majority of whom are British dependent territory citizens—and their wish to retain that nationality. I have to say that I do not believe that either this Parliament, or a successor, would favour changes which stimulated emigration from Hong Kong to the United Kingdom or elsewhere. That is a further reason why we are looking for arrangements that would allow Hong Kong people to enter and leave the territory freely and, at the same time, provide a secure future for them there. That must remain a prime objective.
To ensure this, it is important that Hong Kong people should be in no doubt where administrative responsibility lies. In working for an agreement on Hong Kong's longterm future, we shall not lose sight of our responsibilities in the period before 1997. Until that time, we shall continue to provide the framework within which the Hong Kong Government can administer the territory and plan for its future. Our intention is to protect Hong Kong's prosperity by making the transition as smooth as possible. Hong Kong is successful, and we firmly intend it to remain so.
The Chinese Government have made it clear publicly that they see the administration of Hong Kong, after 1997, as being in the hands of Hong Kong people themselves. This would follow a process of democratic development, which I am glad to say is already under way and which I expect to evolve further. During the years immediately ahead, the Government of Hong Kong will be developed on increasingly representative lines.
We are aware of the Chinese desire that an announcement about future arrangements for Hong Kong should be made in September. We are working to a programme in the talks which takes account of Chinese wishes, but also of all our own requirements. The people of Hong Kong will need to know the terms of any agreement that may be reached and have time to express their views; and Parliament will wish to take account of those views when we come to debate the agreement. It is, of course, Parliament which must make the final decision. For the Government's part, I can assure the House that we would not be ready to recommend a package which we believe would be regarded as inadequate. We are not seeking an agreement for its own sake, or an agreement at any price. It is important to get the right agreement.
To sum up, I came away from Peking with the belief that a good deal of progress had been made, but the House should be aware that some major points still have to be resolved. I believe that there is a determination on the part of both Governments to bring our work to a successful conclusion—certainly we are working in good faith to that end—but a complex and challenging stage in the negotiations still lies ahead. We have some way to go. If we can succeed, we shall have achieved much. We shall have built a bridge of mutual confidence spanning two nations and three societies. Our aim is clear—a binding agreement which will secure a high degree of continuity for Hong Kong under Chinese sovereignty, preserve the essentials of the present systems and way of life in Hong Kong, and be acceptable to the people of Hong Kong. It must be one which we can honourably commend to this House.

Mr. Denis Healey: I should like to say, first, how grateful we are to the Government for agreeing to our request for a debate. The talks are now well under way and the House has the right and duty to give its views before they are concluded. I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving us a much clearer idea of his objectives than he has been able to give hitherto. Some of what he said will have allayed some of the worries that were present in Hong Kong and Britain after his press conference in Hong Kong.
I do not propose to discuss the detailed issues but rather to describe what I believe are the realities that the talks must recognise if they are to be successful. I know that many right hon. and hon. Members have substantive personal experience of Hong Kong. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) was born there and I believe that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller) served as a civil servant there for 13 years.
I have much less personal knowledge, but I paid regular visits to Hong Kong during my six years as Defence Secretary in the 1960s. At that time we had several battalions of troops there, a Royal Air Force base with a fighter squadron that was always in position, substantial naval forces and much larger forces on call from Singapore. It is easy to forget that, at that time, the harbour in Hong Kong was full of American warships and aircraft carriers because it was used for rest and recreation by American forces that were fighting in Vietnam. In spite of that, nobody in Hong Kong had the slightest illusion that the forces available could resist for more than a few days if China decided to invade Hong Kong territory. More important than that, when I stood—as I am sure that Foreign Secretary did — on the Peak on Hong Kong island, I could see, well below the horizon, the Pearl river from which Hong Kong draws most of its water in China.
China has never needed to use troops to take over Hong Kong or to break international law. If it had wished, it could have done so simply by turning off the tap. In addition, a large part of the Hong Kong population then supported Peking and still does. It wanted the return of Hong Kong to China and still does. It was interesting to learn that the Unofficial Members of the Executive and Legislative Councils who were kind enough to talk to me this week estimate that about one third of Hong Kong's

population favours Peking. That one third could have made Hong Kong ungovernable at any time, but it did not do so except for a few days during the cultural revolution, when it was neither encouraged by nor had any support from Peking.
The fact is that, although China has always regarded Hong Kong as Chinese territory and could have taken it at almost any time since the second world war without using its armed forces, it has not done so. It did not do so on many occasions when one might have feared such an event—in 1949, after the Communists asserted complete control over China, later, when China risked direct conflict with the United States over Quemoy and Matsu, and during the cultural revolution when it expressed violent hostility to the West and western embassies in China were attacked and Chinese diplomats defended their embassy in London with axes.
However, during that period of nearly 40 years, the population has grown from 600,000 to 5·5 million, largely through immigrants from China, and their children, who together now form two thirds of the population. It must be recognised that the bulk of the immigrants left China not as political refugees but for economic reasons. That was especially true of the mass immigration of the mid-1960s.
One must draw the conclusion from that historical background that the security of Hong Kong since the war has not depended on the treaties that the Kuomintang and the Government in Peking attacked with equal ferocity and which, in any case, expire in 1997. It has not depended on the presence of British forces, although they sometimes protected internal stability and exercised some control over the flow of immigrants from China. The security of Hong Kong during this long period had depended on the conviction in Peking that China derived great economic benefits from the growing prosperity of Hong Kong which it would be madness to throw away, provided that the United Kingdom did not use Hong Kong for provocation —which it never has.
That conviction as to the the value to China of Hong Kong in its present form survived enormous fluctuations in internal policy in China. It survived the thousand flowers period and the cultural revolution and continues to survive during the new pragmatism of China's current rulers. Those economic benefits, which have been the key to China's attitude towards Hong Kong, have never been as great as they are now. Nor have they ever been so openly recognised in Peking.
I am glad that the Foreign Secretary also stressed the importance of the warmth of bilateral relations between Britain and China, because they have not always been so warm since the second world war. It is worth reflecting that this tiny territory, which has under 1 per cent. of the population of India, has twice India's trade. It exports more garments than any other country; it is the first financial centre in Asia and the third financial centre in the world. China has benefited directly from Hong Kong's economic success. Hong Kong has been a source of hard currency, because it buys water, food and electricity from China. It has also been a major means of re-exporting manufactured goods from China and has increasingly been a centre for investment by Peking. I saw that it was estimated in 1981 that between 3 billion and 5 billion American dollars' worth of investment had been made by Communist China in Hong Kong. In other words, Communist China is the main source of foreign capital in


Hong Kong at the moment. These are all advantages and commitments that no Chinese Government will lightly throw away.
There is no reason to believe that that would not have continued indefinitely, until the Prime Minister went to Peking in September 1982. I fear that when she made that strident public assertion of continued British sovereignty, when the Chinese leaders were especially sensitive about such matters for internal reasons, she inevitably received an equally public rebuff. The Hong Kong dollar plummeted to its lowest level for 25 years and 25 per cent. was wiped off the value of shares on the Hong Kong stock exchange. Shortly afterwards, the talks between Britain and China on the future of Hong Kong were interrupted for six months. She gave a new meaning to the phrase, "Bull in a china shop."
Perhaps things would have taken much their present course even if the Prime Minister had not made that irresponsible intervention, but without her comments the atmosphere of the talks would have been much less highly charged and confidence would have been much less fragile. I know that I have sometimes criticised the Foreign Secretary for a somewhat laid-back style, but in this case his temperament has been appropriate to the situation. The problems of Hong Kong responded much more easily to someone who seeks solace in Mogadon than someone who seeks stimulus from other sources.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Like you.

Mr. Healey: Me too, yes.
Nevertheless, it is notable that Peking tried to smooth the way of the talks, even after this episode, by a series of public statements that she wished Hong Kong to continue its present economic situation and political and social freedoms even after the treaty has ended, and she sought to give meaning to these statements by increasing investment in Hong Kong.
This attempt to smooth the way of the talks culminated in the plan released by Chinese officials in Hong Kong last August, which I think the Foreign Secretary and the House will agree offered the substance that all Hong Kong had been asking for in principle. We must take it that the talks, so far as the Foreign Secretary has described them, suggest that Britain will not be able to change the position of China in substance beyond this. Indeed, the Chinese Government have announced that unless agreement is reached they will announce this plan as their own decision.
One has to accept, as the Foreign Secretary conceded, that our negotiating position is not strong, mainly for the reasons that I have described and particularly, although I do not blame the Foreign Secretary for this, after we publicly conceded both British sovereignty and British administration. If we were to try to exaggerate our bargaining power, Peking's conduct might be guided by the old saying, "Who will bribe when he can bully?" However, it is important at the same time to recognise that China has again and again stated that she has the same objectives as Britain in these talks—to keep Hong Kong a going concern on capitalist lines with political and legal freedoms for the next 63 years at least.
Increasingly in recent months, statements from Peking have shown that the Chinese Government recognise that Hong Kong will remain a going concern only if the people of Hong Kong have confidence that it will remain a going concern. Confidence is the key to the whole problem. As

I see it, the job of Her Majesty's Government in the talks is to ensure that both the content of the ultimate agreement and the course of the talks strengthen rather than weaken the necessary confidence. Political factors may be the key here.
The Foreign Secretary conceded that China cannot afford any concession to Britain on sovereignty or administration which would set a dangerous precedent for similar disputes with the Soviet Union or other neighbours. Equally, China cannot afford to damage confidence inside Hong Kong, not just for economic reasons but because it sees a peaceful agreement over Hong Kong by consent as an important precedent for a similar settlement of its dispute with Taiwan.
Britain cannot afford to shake confidence by brinkmanship—I do not think that there is much danger of that from the Government, but it has been suggested by some commentators on the problem. To play brinkmanship with confidence in Hong Kong would lead not only to the collapse of the talks but to the one situation in which the millions of British citizens in Hong Kong could present the British House of Commons and people with a moral dilemma that we must do our utmost to avoid being faced with.
Against this background, we must consider the representations that we have been getting over recent weeks from the Unofficial Members of the Hong Kong Administration and other citizens who have been here. All who have received these representations will have been impressed by their sincerity and concern for the present and future of the territory. We must accept that confidence in Hong Kong may be increased by explicit undertakings on matters of detail, but as China sees Hong Kong as sovereign territory after 1997, if not now, it is difficult to ask China to define the internal regime of a part of its sovereign territory in an agreement with a foreign power rather than through its own basic law.
In any case, nobody should be under any illusion that words in a written agreement can ever provide an absolute guarantee against fundamental political change in any of the countries concerned. There were no guarantees against the Communist revolution in 1949 and there could have been none. There were no guarantees against the cultural revolution, with all that it portended for China's relations with foreign countries. There are no guarantees that Hong Kong and Peking will not have been destroyed by nuclear bombs before 1997. We must accept that the type of guarantee that many naturally seek is not to be had in this world.
Moreover, if undertakings are broken, there is little effective national sanction that a United Kingdom Government could invoke against such a breach. The re al sanction both during and after the search for agreement on Hong Kong is the fear of a threat to that confidence on which China's interest, Britain's interest and Hong Kong's interest equally depend. No one can doubt that Peking is fully aware of this, and there is growing evidence that Peking's current commitment to the system in Hong Kong goes beyond the traditional economic interests that I have already mentioned.
In his speech yesterday to the National People's Congress in Peking, the Prime Minister of China announced new measures of corporate taxation which would give industrial enterprises greater freedom in managing their own affairs, would stimulate productivity and efficiency and would


do away with egalitarianism in distribution"—
a decision that I dare say will be more welcome on the Conservative side of the House than on ours. The Prime Minister of China said that there are two major issues that must receive special attention — restructuring the economic set-up and opening the Chinese economy to the outside world.
There is growing evidence that the economic success of Chinese communities, not only in Hong Kong but in Singapore, have stimulated interest and admiration in Peking. Special economic zones, which are multiplying on China's frontiers, not least the one just across the border in Guangdong, are seen by the Chinese Government as laboratories for testing the possibility of developing similar policies for China itself. The absorption of Hong Kong into China may be seen as giving this new trend a major boost.
However, the one area where precise commitments from Peking seem to be very important and most feasible concerns Hong Kong's openness to the outside world, on which its future as a financial trading centre must depend. This implies something that I do not think the Foreign Secretary mentioned, the possibility of continuing to enjoy the advantages of being members of GATT and the multifibre agreement — I am sorry if I misunderstood the Foreign Secretary, he seems now to be indicating assent — and, what I know he mentioned, continuing convertibility of the Hong Kong dollar. Beyond that, the closer the Foreign Secretary can get to autonomy as he defined it to us this afternoon, the more we shall all welcome it.
The most difficult problem facing Britain and the Government is outside the talks themselves. It is how to satisfy themselves and Parliament that an ultimate agreement is consistent with the interests and aspirations of the people of Hong Kong when that people does not yet fully enjoy representative institutions and when many of those who have been elected to some of the bodies that have elected members have been elected on very low votes.
We must avoid a referendum. Our experience of the referenda on Scotland and on the European Community suggests that a referendum is a most unsuitable means of consulting a people on major constitutional change.—[Interruption.] People could change their minds on this issue as quickly as they did on the European Community. That happens even in an advanced parliamentary democracy. A referendum would be wholly inappropriate in Hong Kong. The sort of political campaign that a referendum would require, if it were to be meaningful, would risk setting the Communists and the supporters of the Kuomintang against one another in a way that could destroy the very confidence without which Hong Kong cannot survive either under British jurisdiction or under the Chinese.
The trouble is that it is impossible to produce effective representative institutions for testing Hong Kong opinion in the few months still available when we have refused to do so during the past 150 years. In any case, the real problem of democratising Hong Kong lies in making the bureaucracies more accountable to the people rather than producing a parliamentary democracy on the Westminster model, which has worked in few places that do not have

Anglo-Saxon political traditions and has not worked anywhere in countries having a majority of Chinese in their population.
If Britain can secure the necessary understanding from Peking in the coming months, the maintenance of confidence during the 13 years that follow until 1997, such as the development of more representative institutions, must depend primarily on the people of Hong Kong. I confess that I am uneasy about the length of the transition period because British authority in Hong Kong will dwindle very rapidly once the agreement is ratified and the process of democratisation gets under way. In the main, it will be for the people of Hong Kong to conduct the dialogue with Peking from that time on. If the final date for relinquishing sovereignty and responsibility is brought forward by agreement between the people of Hong Kong and the Government of Peking, so much the better, because it is difficult to exercise responsibility without possessing authority.
During this period, we know that some of the fat cats in Hong Kong may scuttle away. Jardine Matheson has already done so, but no one who remembers Mr. Keswick's evidence some years ago at the tribunal when he said, "It may be derogatory to sterling, but it makes good sense to me," has ever had much faith in the devotion of Jardine Matheson to any cause, except its view of its profitability.
The prosperity of Hong Kong does not and will not depend upon a few individuals. Vitality, enterprise and financial skills are so widely spread among the Chinese people that there will be five people to take the place of every one person who goes. In the difficult months ahead we must cling to the sensible summation of the situation in an article in the South China Morning Post nine days after the Foreign Secretary's press conference, when the immediate impact had begun to die away. The article stated:
However, if China was prepared to accept Hongkong for 143 tumultuous years despite massive changes, why should it not also honour an international agreement covering the next 50 years?
Let us acknowledge it had to come to an end one day. And what we have to be certain about in making this transition is not to bemoan our fate and stand aloof from change, but to make sure that the Hongkong spirit continues regardless of what flag flies.
It is in the Government's power in their talks with the Chinese Government to ensure that the Hong Kong spirit survives as predicted in that editorial.

Mr. Edward Heath: I shall in some ways echo the last words of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). I reaffirm my complete confidence that the people of Hong Kong are fully capable of handling the situation that lies in front of them during the rest of this century and for a long time thereafter. Their achievements are remarkable, even though many of them believe that they should have had greater opportunities from the British administration. Any island with such a record cannot fail to succeed in the rest of this century.
I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary on the frankness with which he stated the real position. He did so in Hong Kong after his talks in Peking, and he has today again stated the position. The position is one that some of us have recognised for a long time. We have recognised that the treaty on the new territories expires in 1997 and that the treaty of Nanking of 1842 could not survive that. Certainly, Hong Kong as


an island could not survive that, and the reasons were given by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.
On 13 March 1972 we established full diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. It is notable that we acknowledged, in the diplomatic statement at that time, that Taiwan was a province of China and withdrew our diplomatic representation from Taiwan. Why did the Government. over whom I had the honour to preside, do that? We did so for the reason that has been echoed by my right hon. and learned Friend and by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East. We believed that the best guarantees for the future lay in good relations with the People's Republic of China and that, therefore, we should do everything possible to establish those good relations.
Our first objective was to take account of China's strategic position in the balance of world power, which we envisaged developing more and more towards the end of this century. The second objective was Britain's own interests—economic and trading—in carrying on further development with China. The third objective was to ensure the best possible future for the colony of Hong Kong. We wished, first, to avoid any repetition of the troubles that had occurred in the 1960s and, secondly, to make the best possible arrangements when the treaty expired in 1997.
Good relationships, which both sides of the House have emphasised, have been established, and have prevented further difficulties between the mainland and Hong Kong. That is very satisfactory. I echo my right hon. and learned Friends statement that the best possible guarantee for the future lies in the continued good relationship between London and Peking. That has involved, as the statement said, sovereignty, including the island, passing to Peking on 1 July 1997.
It is right to say that administration cannot be separated from sovereignty. This is not a position that we would ever acknowledge anywhere else. We never acknowledged it with regard to the movement to independence of colonial territories, and, in this case, we cannot try to enforce that issue.
On 6 April 1982, I had a discussion lasting two hours with Deng Xiaoping in which Hong Kong occupied a major part of our talks. Her Majesty's ambassador was present throughout and kept a complete record that was immediately passed to the Government. I was asked to ensure that the Foreign Secretary saw the complete record and recognised the importance of the conversation, although he was preoccupied with the Falklands attack. He kindly saw me and I emphasised to him the importance of that discussion.
Deng Xiaoping outlined the Chinese position both on sovereignty and on administration. He also comprehensively outlined how he foresaw the future of Hong Kong. He said that Peking was prepared to do everything it considered reasonable to ensure the continued confidence of the people of Hong Kong and to aid its prosperity.
He referred to the nine points that he had put to Taiwan. Again, I wish to emphasise the immense importance to Peking of a satisfactory solution to the Hong Kong question, to bring about a change in American opinion about the future relationship of Taiwan as a full province of the People's Republic of China. That is of the utmost importance to China and is, therefore, of great significance to us and the people of Hong Kong in the negotiations.
Deng Xiaoping emphasised that Hong Kong would retain the greater part of its current arrangements. It will

retain its freeport status, its right to carry on negotiations and its right to deal in foreign affairs on commercial matters and with GATT. It will maintain its system of justice, with the one exception that there will no longer be the right of appeal to the Privy Council. However, there will be a right of appeal to a new high court. After all, many Commonwealth countries no longer maintain the right to appeal to the Privy Council; indeed, only a small minority do so.
Therefore, to have its freeport, its own administration, with the people of Hong Kong — no matter whether Hong Kong Chinese, British or Chinese—being able to settle administration arrangements and to be part of a special enterprise zone, constitutes a comprehensive arrangement, subject to detailed negotiations by the Foreign Secretary. I wish that in September 1982 the Foreign Secretary had made the statement that he has made today about the sovereignty and administration of Hong Kong. The remainder of the time could then have been devoted to the arrangements for both the interim period and after 1997.
The Foreign Secretary was right to emphasise that the statement from the Unofficial Members of both the executive and legislative councils represent only their personal views. In no way have they been inspired by the British Government or by anyone in this House. They are entirely the views of the people who put them forward, and do not represent the views of the people of Hong Kong. Those of us who have met other delegations, have visited Hong Kong over a long period and know many sections of the population, know that the Unofficial Members appointed by the Governor do not represent the people of Hong Kong. They never have, and they never will. I am sure that Peking realises that. However, if there is any doubt, many hon. Members can say quite bluntly that the views of the Government are those expressed by the Prime Minister and her colleagues and not those expressed indirectly by Members of either the Legislative or Executive Councils in Hong Kong.
We must take account of Deng Xiaoping's statement, repeated to me last September, that negotiations must end by September 1984. That is a statement of the Chinese position that will not be changed. Failing any agreement, Peking will make a statement about what will happen. Neither side can possibly want that to happen. It is in Peking's general interests, and in the interests of its arrangements about the future of Taiwan, that there should be an agreed statement.
I believe that Peking is convinced that any agreement should be registered internationally, and that it should be kept. We know that we will keep any agreement. We have a certain reputation to maintain, as does the People's Republic of China. Looking to Taiwan, it is important to China to keep any agreement.
We must deal with the transitional period and the question of acceptability. I was slightly anxious at the conclusion of my right hon. and learned Friend's speech because it began to assume the rather familiar shape that the proposal must be acceptable to everybody or it would not be implemented. He should be as frank about this matter as he has been about sovereignty and administration. We must recognise that he and the Government are circumscribed by what they say about sovereignty and administration. What comes thereafter is a matter of


detailed questions of administration, jurisdiction, commercial arrangements and so on. It is difficult to say that all those matters must be acceptable to most of the people in Hong Kong.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) that most people in Hong Kong will not comprehend the detailed arrangements of jurisdiction, commerce, finance, representation and system of government. Indeed, most people in this country would not comprehend those matters. I hope, therefore, that we shall make it clear that the Government are circumscribed and will achieve the best possible arrangement, knowing that Peking wants to maintain confidence for financial and economic purposes. That is the best guarantee we have in the financial and commercial areas.
It would be possible to send a commission to Hong Kong, as we did to Rhodesia and central Africa, to ascertain views. Again, it would have to be within circumscribed limits. Therefore, we might question how necessary or valuable that might be.
During the interim period there will be growing pressure in Hong Kong for the development of a democratic system. That pressure will become stronger and stronger. If there is any attempt to resist it by the Government or by the Unofficial Members—let alone the Official Members—of the Legislative and Executive Councils, tensions will grow in Hong Kong. We all want to avoid that. It is desirable that when the agreement has been reached between the two Governments, they should begin to work out a timetable for democratic arrangements in Hong Kong.
We should not try to impose any particular system on Hong Kong, and certainly not a party system. To the people of Hong Kong, party implies the party of Peking. They will develop their own system of elections and procedures as democracy increases. I do not entirely share the view of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East about the fate of the Westminster system for countries with large Chinese populations. Singapore is an example of a country that has adopted the Westminster system.

Mr. Healey: It does not work.

Mr. Heath: Singapore is one of the most successful countries in the Pacific basin. I do not think that Prime Minister Lee would agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It may be true that there is only one member of the Opposition in its Assembly, but that is something that the right hon. Gentleman might have to face himself. He may, eventually, be the last surviving member of the Opposition.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was making a good speech until he reached this point. When I was in Singapore I was taken to the Assembly and shown the seat occupied by the one member of the Opposition. When I asked to see him, I was told that he was in prison.

Mr. Heath: That shows that their criminal arrangements are flexible. [Laughter.]
The Hong Kong Chinese must be allowed to develop their own system of administration and government. How can anyone believe that a Hong Kong, with its achievements, people and qualifications, cannot take over

the administration and the running of Hong Kong? How can we say that there is no one there capable of being the Finance Secretary of Hong Kong when one sees the immense fortunes that have been achieved there and the way that they so successfully run their business affairs? I shall try to imagine what would happen if we had some of the Chinese of Hong Kong in our Treasury, and we will not go into that. They are capable of running the affairs of Hong Kong. We should have a timetable within which a democratic system could be introduced, worked out with Peking so that we could say that we were now moving towards 1977 and thereafter. The people of Hong Kong could see how their future would be run by themselves, they could have confidence in the future, and the rest of the world could have confidence in them.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: There is a certain honourable continuity in the dealings of this House with Hong Kong. Some 21 years ago, as a new Member, I was summoned to the room of my then party leader, who is now in another place, and was somewhat surprised to find with him the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). The right hon. Gentleman had been dispatched by the Foreign Office to tell my party leader that the Governor of Hong Kong wanted me to withdraw the subject of my Adjournment debate. I said that I was happy to tell the right hon. Gentleman what I proposed to say — namely that I believed that the economic and political future of Hong Kong lay in its economic integration with China—and the right hon. Gentleman said that he could see no earthly harm in that. The Adjournment debate went ahead with constructive contributions from both sides of the House. It was the first debate on Hong Kong in the House since the war.
This is a historic debate for 5 million or more people in Hong Kong. I may be the only native-born citizen of Hong Kong in the House, but I am sure that I speak for a large majority on both sides of the House when I say that our overriding consideration in the debate is the well-being of the people of Hong Kong.
Part of our obligation to the people of Hong Kong is to speak frankly and realistically about the position in which they and we find ourselves. Events will move a great deal faster than the people in Hong Kong are yet adjusted to. It will be entirely understandable if there were now to be a rapid reaction against the United Kingdom.
We are, after all, saying to the people of Hong Kong that we can give no guarantees about the continuity of their life style and freedom. Many of them say that we are selling out to the Communism of the People's Republic of China, from which many of them have fled. We are not offering rights to resettlement to any significant number of the people of Hong Kong. Furthermore, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said, the settlement will undermine the authority of the Hong Kong Administration as it is at present constituted.
The change in expectations that will be induced in the people of Hong Kong and those who invest from abroad in Hong Kong will have rapid and drastic effects on the flight of capital and the economic decline of a vigorous economy. Circumstances are forcing the people of Hong Kong to take charge of their own future. There will be rapid political change in the island and the New Territories. There is no question of a time scale of 13


years. That is utterly unrealistic. It will be a matter of only two or three years before the pattern of new government and administration for Hong Kong, which can continue into and beyond 1997, will be established.
The first requirement is that the policies for that transitional period must be put forward by the people of Hong Kong. There can be no polite deputations to Westminster and Peking asking for our views and saying politely that they are only asking questions. They must put forward a positive programme of how they want to see Hong Kong run. That programme must contain a proper recognition of the interests of the People's Republic of China. That interest is not just economic. There is a great historical tradition in relations between Peking and the provinces in China, of which this is a further phase.
There is the extremely practical point that no one in Peking would wish to see corruption spreading into the government of China from Hong Kong if it became rampant in an appointed system of government in Hong Kong.
The People's Republic of China has an economic interest in the future of Hong Kong. It is perhaps best represented, by the hidden rent—the rent paid by imports from China, Chinese investment in Hong Kong and the special economic zones, foreign investment in China and, of growing importance, access to Western technology and its rapid absorption in China, and the formidable impact that that will have on patterns of world trade.
The second element in the policies that must be put forward from within Hong Kong must deal with the social policies which are acceptable to the great majority of the people of Hong Kong, covering housing, health, education and welfare, in which Hong Kong has a proud record of achievement, but where the pattern must respond to the needs, as the people themselves put them forward. It must extend to the treatment of jobs, pay and conditions of employment, where we have been overly influenced in the past by the mistaken idea that it is merely by free enterprise and unfettered capitalism that Hong Kong has operated.
Such social policies must command the support of the masses within Hong Kong, but they must, at the same time, be compatible with the economic, financial, trade and industry policies necessary in a great international trading and industrial centre wih its own currency. That is a political problem that would tax the most ingenious Members of the House. It will tax the people of Hong Kong, but I am confident that they will rise to the challenge. Within Hong Kong there will grow spontaneously mass organisations, with grass roots support—electoral organisations which fight and win direct elections, because there is no alternative to direct elections. Those associations must have comprehensive policies to deal with difficult international and domestic issues and demonstrate a capability to take responsibility for government. We call such organisations political parties. The words are not welome within Hong Kong, but Chinese is a rich language and there is no lack of names for such associations.
There will soon be mass demonstations of feeling within Hong Kong. At present the Hong Kong Government do not allow political meetings within schools. Very well, hold the meetings in churches and in the open air. Let the Hong Kong Administration rapidly change their legislation so that it allows and positively facilitates political organisations and meetings.
Constitutional change must and will quickly follow the manifestation of views from within Hong Kong. I believe that it can and will do so in an orderly way. The people of Hong Kong must not wait for the approval of this House or the Governor, or for a pat on the head from leaders 111 the press within Hong Kong or this country; they must act in their own interests.
We have a great deal of experience of decolonisation. It is our obligation to ensure that movements of opinion within Hong Kong are free to express themselves arid determine events. I believe that we shall exercise that special duty responsibly on both sides of the House.
A copy of that Adjournment debate held in 1963, in which I said that the future of Hong Kong lay in its economic integration with China, was produced by Lord Kadoorie when I visited Hong Kong in 1975. An hon. Member cannot be more flattered than when a 12-year-oild speech is produced. The noble Lord said to me, "We are embarking upon economic integration with China."
If what I said then was economically and politicaly realistic, so is all that I have said tonight. I urge the people of Hong Kong to take responsibility for their own future. I believe that they have a great contribution to make to the future of the Chinese people, and, with China, to the whole of mankind. I wish them godspeed.

Mr. Robert Adley: I am glad to be able to follow the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) because I believe that he and I share the distinction, if that be the word, or even if it is not the word, of initiating the only two Adjournment debates specifically about Hong Kong to be held in the many years to which he referred. Those of us who listened to his speech will feel—I say this, I hope, with no discourtesy to the hon. Gentleman's family—that he is a well-advised member of his family on these matters.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) have rightly said that the history and the background are well known. There is no point in going over all that ground tonight. I think one has to express sympathy with Her Majesty's Government, who are dealing with an extremely difficult problem. I should like to say, therefore, that the support of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East for the Government was very welcome to those who have known him in the House for many years. It would be disastrous for the people of Hong Kong if the issue were to become a party political issue in the House.
Above all, as has already been said, our concern tonight and in the future is for the people of Hong Kong. I share with the right hon. Member for Leeds, East the view that some of the press comment in the past few weeks and months has been very unhelpful. Even the Far East Economic Review, a most respected journal, said this week:
The British Parliament is due to debate Hong Kong for one day on 16 May but it seems unlikely that MPs are either sufficiently concerned or informed to challenge seriously the Government's handling of the Hong Kong issue.
That is a monstrous allegation to make, and it presupposes that there is a conspiracy of agreement between all political parties in the House, for aims that are not disclosed, which anyone who knows this Parliament would find quite impossible to accept.
I hope, if I may say this to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that she will not recoil from having


received support from my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). I believe that the more of us in this House who can support the Government in what they are trying to achieve, the better it will be.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Leeds, East that demands for guarantees are understandable, but unwise. I cannot give my constituents a guarantee that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) will not be Prime Minister in this country in five or 10 years. I can do my best to ensure that that does not happen but I cannot guarantee it. Equally, I submit, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is unwise to cast aspersions on the good faith of the Chinese Government.
I want to pursue this evening the theme of Hong Kong rule for Hong Kong people, which has been put forward by the Chinese Government. We are familiar here with the lady called TINA—there may be no alternative to the Government's economic policy in Britain. That does not apply in Hong Kong's current situation. What has always worried me about the way Hong Kong opinion has moved is that the alternative that is available to the Chinese Government, if there is sufficient aggravation created in Hong Kong, is a much less attractive alternative than that currently on offer.
I should like, therefore, to pursue two points briefly tonight with my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. First, we should listen to the people of Hong Kong. We should make sure that we are listening to the right people and not just to the Unofficial Members of the Executive and Legislative Councils. Secondly, we have heard this evening from the Government that they will support moves towards democracy that are initiated by the Hong Kong Government. I say to the Front Bench that that is not enough. We have a responsibility, as the hon. Member for Motherwell, South has said, to make sure that the changes that will soon—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right—be sweeping over Hong Kong, and the demands for constitutional change, cannot be blocked. My right hon. and learned Friend said so too. They must not be blocked or stopped by the Hong Kong Government.
Her Majesty's Government have a specific task to take the initiative in these moves. I do not want to weary the House with quotations tonight, but I must say that the members of the UMELCO delegation that is visiting this country at the moment have done themselves no good and have done the people of Hong Kong, so I believe, a great deal of harm.
According to the South China Morning Post, they have even managed to upset Lord MacLehose. There can be no greater friend of Hong Kong in this country than he. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker), who was born in Hong Kong, was also quoted in the South China Morning Post this week as saying that the UMELCO manifesto was "unrealistic and unnecessarily pessimistic". I agree—

Mr. Robert Parry: Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that the leader in last week's Hong Kong Standard called UMELCO's visit here a grovelling one and said that they were speaking not for the people of Hong Kong but only for themselves?

Mr. Adley: People will think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) has been reading my notes. The leader actually says—I just happen to have it with me—
While Dr. Ding and his delegation are in Britain to lobby for democracy, Umelco is canvassing to keep whatever colonial vestiges it can from vanishing come that dreaded date, July 1997.
For a self-proclaimed mirror on Hong Kong opinions, Umelco seems to reflect not so much the daily concerns of the Hong Kong public but the obsessions of the few.
It is essential to put on record in the House that that is not a view that some us in the House are putting forward, but it was put forward in a leading article in one of the main English language newspapers in Hong Kong.
I should like to concentrate for a few moments more on the question of democracy. A delegation led by Dr. Ding has been here this week to pursue its cause. Furthermore the young people of Hong Kong demand it, Her Majesty's Government obviously support it and the People's Republic of China have stated clearly that they are in favour of it. In those circumstances we would be mad—I stress that we would be mad—to do anything other than pursue that course. Democracy, or the democratisation of Hong Kong, is surely the best guarantee for the people of Hong Kong against the imposition upon them of unwanted change in the future. Unless we take an active rather than a passive role, there is the danger, as the hon. Member for Motherwell, South said, of creating a serious vacuum.
None of us knows how far China is really prepared to go in seeing a democracy in Hong Kong. The answer, therefore, is surely to put their words to the test and try it. Let us take them at their word. I think that the people of Hong Kong will find that they will finish up with democratic institutions that could not have been created before the inclusion of the People's Republic of China in the negotiations.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Continuing that theme, would my hon. Friend care to comment on the interesting proposal in the document published by the Committee for Democracy in Hong Kong that, during the transitional period, the gubernation should be eventually demolished and replaced by a mayoralty, either indirectly elected by the municipal council or directly by universal suffrage?

Mr. Adley: It would not be appropriate tonight to go into great detail about such documents. I should think that we would best have an elected governor of the special administrative region of Hong Kong, elected by the Chinese people there so that Hong Kong would have a governor, together with the other provinces of China, although he would be elected in a very different manner from the others.
It is essential that we encourage change long before 1997. A spokesman for the Government of the People's Republic said to me in Hong Kong some months ago that the last thing that the Chinese Government wanted was to have to send in the Shanghai cadres in 1997 to do then what the British Government do now—namely to appoint the leaders of Hong Kong. Anyone who has followed these matters must know that if the Chinese Government are serious about maintaining stability in Hong Kong the constitutional changes must take place soon, long before 1997, so that when that time comes there will be virtually no changes in constitutional arrangements for the Chinese Government to make.
Some people, of course, want talks between the British and Chinese Governments to fail. The regime in Taiwan, for instance, would like nothing better than a bust-up between Britain and China over Hong Kong, but the wisdom of the British Government and the patience of the Chinese Government are seeing to it that that does not happen. I only regret that voices are occasionally raised in Hong Kong which give the impression that they reflect those views, which I regard as extremely dangerous.
China has made such specific pledges that if it reneged on them it would earn and deserve the opprobrium of the entire world, certainly the entire free world. I am confident that that will not happen. Understandably, the people of Hong Kong are in a delicate position, constantly expecting something to emerge to get them off the horns of their dilemma, but there will be no magic moment in the discussions when that could happen. The interest of the people of Hong Kong in our debate today is not misplaced, but it would be misplaced if anyone there thought that this debate, this House or indeed anyone at any their, was likely suddenly to produce a miracle solution to the problems.
I close with this message to the people of Hong Kong. We understand their dilemma and we care about their problems, but we have hope for their future.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: There was a brief but extremely important passage in the speech of the Foreign Secretary in which he referred to the future citizenship or nationality status of the people of Hong Kong. I wish to dilate for a few minutes on that point. I believe, as the Foreign Secretary said, that in this matter the words and actions of the Government in the coming months and years will be highly relevant to the purpose of securing stability for Hong Kong in the future.
It was the traditional form of status in this country that it derived from dominion. Those were British subjects who belonged or were born within the allegiance. Consequently, as our empire extended, its inhabitants all owned the common status of British subjects. That applied to Hong Kong itself, to Kowloon and even to the New Territories: their people, like the rest, were British subjects of necessity.
After the second world war, however, we recognised that the self-governing parts of the Commonwealth were bound to establish their own citizenships. We acknowledged that fact by making a fundamental change in our own nationality law whereby we recognised those citizenships as constituting the totality of British subjecthood together with the residue of the Commonwealth which did not yet enjoy self-government, but was lumped together with the United Kingdom as the United Kingdom and Colonies. As self-government in the Commonwealth extended, so the category of the United Kingdom and Colonies progressively shrank, until, as schedule 6 to the British Nationality Act 1981 shows, the total had dwindled by then to 15 territories, of which two were uninhabited.
Meanwhile, something else had happened. Another change had forced itself upon our recognition. We had been obliged to accept that the appurtenances of citizenship, the essence of being a citizen, could not be shared by the entire vast population thitherto comprehended in the concept of British subjecthood. We therefore distinguished between those who belonged, in a defined sense, to the United Kingdom and the remainder of the citizens of the Commonwealth.
That cast a particularly difficult light on the fate of those residual territories which neither desired nor envisaged their own respective self-government. When the British Nationality Bill was debated in 1981, many hon. Members urged the Government to make a clean sweep and to recognise the inhabitants of all but one of those territories plainly and simply as British citizens. Indeed, it has been of some satisfaction to us in the two years that have since elapsed that this has in fact happened—in relation to the people of the Falkland Islands without one word of debate in the House, and in effect, if not in form, in relation to the people of Gibraltar.
One territory in that category, however, was wholly distinct from all the rest—Hong Kong—although our legislation imposed on it the same designation of British overseas territory and upon its people the same status of citizens of the British overseas territories, a designation devoid of content, as it conferred on its holders no rights outside their own particular dependent territory. Such is today the status of the people of Hong Kong in the law of the United Kingdom.
We are now bound to ask what will be the status of the people of Hong Kong when the transfer of sovereignty takes place, as it will and must. In the past, when the Crown has ceded territory, when territories have ceased to be parts of its dominions—as when we recognised the independence of the American colonies or when we acknowledged the departure from the Commonwealth of the Republic of South Africa—we always provided that individuals who desired to retain their existing status would have the opportunity so to do.
One is bound to ask whether that concept will be applicable to Hong Kong. It seems to me that it cannot apply, for the simple reason that the status currently possessed by the people of Hong Kong gives to those who possess it no right of entry into any other territory and is thus of no possible value or use to them. So it seems to me that this avenue is closed by the very nature of the case and we must recognise that the consequence of the cession of this territory will be that the people of Hong Kong will cease to have any citizenship status in British nationality law and will become aliens under the laws of this country.
The Government have a heavy responsibility in the coming months and years to ensure that there is no misapprehension or confusion about this, that no notion is left that there might be some third course—some route of escape or some method of fluffing the issue—for the people of Hong Kong, because we may be sure that if that possibility is left open it will not inure to their benefit but will be the means of pressures being brought to bear on them and of endless disappointment and bewilderment.
The Government must speak and act in two directions. Inevitably, there will be pressure to establish rights of settlement in this country for an increasing number of the people of Hong Kong. Whether or not that shall happen is within the executive, the administrative, control of Her Majesty's Government. The Government have a duty in the coming months to exercise their functions under the immigration laws in such a way as to ensure that there is no funnel, as it were, deliberately created by pressure for population to be transferred from Hong Kong to the United Kingdom.
Secondly, whatever the temptations, the Government should refrain from anything which would suggest that there can be contrived for the people of Hong Kong a middle position—some way of having the best of both


worlds. Indeed, I think that the Secretary of State implied by the words that he used in his speech that it was essential for the future stability of Hong Kong that it should grasp what will be the full reality of its future status, and that there should be no self-deception, either here or there, about what that status will be.

Sir Humphrey Atkins: I shall not follow the details of the not unexpected theme of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). He takes every opportunity to talk about this subject, which will come up again as the months and years go by. The right hon. Gentleman stressed the difficulty of the position. All hon. Members understand it. If I understood my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary correctly—I shall be corrected by him if I am wrong—he gave a clear indication that the Government, and the House, did not intend to amend the British Nationality Act 1981.
I shall bear in mind your stricture, Mr. Speaker, and speak briefly about two points. They arise from my visit to Hong Kong for a week during the Easter recess. I took the opportunity to find out as best I could the feelings of the people about the present position.
Obviously, they are anxious about their future. We are all anxious about our future, and they are as anxious as anybody else. One of their anxieties—not a desperate one—was, as many hon. Members said, what guarantee there could be that in 1997, 1998, or 2000, China would stick to an agreement made in 1984 or 1985? As the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said—as did my right hon. and learned Friend—we cannot possibly give a guarantee — certainly not about political developments or indeed, anything else.
However, at the same time there are signs—this was admitted by many people to whom I spoke—that if the People's Republic of China publicly undertakes to do something connected with another country, it sticks to it. It has, for example, left Hong Kong alone since the first treaty was signed.
The Chinese could have taken Hong Kong over at any time. They could do so tomorrow, and neither we nor the people of Hong Kong could stop them. There were two occasions in recent memory when China could have been expected to do precisely that—declaring, as it always has, that the treaties were unequal and, therefore, null and void. The first was during the Communist revolution after the war, when the new regime in China could have taken Hong Kong, and the other was during the cultural revolution, when there was trouble in Hong Kong for some days—largely because there was little central direction. When that central direction was re-established at the beginning of the cultural revolution, however unpleasant that was for many people in the Republic of China, the troubles in Hong Kong were stopped. China could have taken over Hong Kong on either of those two occasions, but it did not.
We can take comfort from that. I realise that those who experienced difficulties in Shanghai after the Communist takeover in China cannot find comfort in that, because they were given assurances, which were not kept. One of the difficulties is that many people in Hong Kong today came from Shanghai because they were driven out when the Communist regime in 1950 did not stick to its word.
It is fair to say that if the Chinese Government make an agreement with our Government, they will stick to it. There are further reasons for saying that. My next point was mentioned during the debate, but was not sufficiently emphasised. We believe that it is our responsibility to reach as good an agreement about the future of Hong Kong as possible, and we are right. We also believe that it is in the interests of the people of Hong Kong that life should continue much as it is, and that we should reach a good agreement. Again we are right. But equally we should stress that it is in the interests of the People's Republic of China to reach a good agreement. It wants Hong Kong to continue as it is, not just because it says so, but because, as both we and it know, it is the most useful outlet to the outside world that it has. It trades and earns vast quantities of foreign exchange through Hong Kong—40 per cent. of its total. Furthermore, 97 or 98 per cent. of the people in Hong Kong are of Chinese descent. Therefore, it is in the Chinese Government's greatest interests to preserve it. All those view are worried about a guarantee should seek it from the Government of China, not the United Kingdom.
Our Government should say to the Chinese Government —as my right hon. and learned Friend is doing—"It is your problem to give a guarantee that in 1997 Hong Kong will flourish as much as it is flourishing now." The easiest thing in the world would be for anxieties to get out of hand and for everybody to say, "We do not know what the future is. We think it is black. We cannot stay in Hong Kong. We must withdraw our money, and, if possible, ourselves."
The last thing that the People's Republic of China wants is to take over in 1997 what is, in its terms, a tiny piece of land, covered almost exclusively with tall buildings with nobody in them. That is not in its interests. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend is telling representatives of the Chinese Government— as I did when I went to Hong Kong—that they must address themselves to the problem because they must satisfy the people of Hong Kong that they mean what they say.
Allied to that, and a way of reinforcing any guarantee that they give, is to progress towards democracy in Hong Kong. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) that it is for us to say precisely how that should work. If he did not say it, I apologise, but I understood him to say that we should persuade Hong Kong to accept our form of democracy. We should not do that, because 98 per cent. of the population is of Chinese descent, and we are not. What suits us may not necessarily suit them. However, we should go ahead as fast as we reasonably can, or as fast as they believe they can, with the establishment of democratic institutions. Indeed, there are some democratic institutions already—not very many, rather small, and not very powerful, but they are a basis upon which we can build.
In the past one reason that was given, rightly or wrongly, why democracy was not developed was that the Chinese would not like it. I do not know whether that was true, but it does not apply today. The Chinese in their pronouncements, from Deng Xiaoping downwards, have said that in 1997 they want Hong Kong to be run by Hong Kong people. That implies Hong Kong being run by people who are approved of and chosen in some way by the people of Hong Kong. There will be no difficulty in proceeding with the development of democratic institutions in Hong Kong, as it is already happening. The


district boards now contain one third elected members; next March that figure will increase to two thirds; and in three years it will increase to 100 per cent. That development should be encouraged and pushed ahead rather more quickly than is the case at present.
The establishment of democracy adds to any guarantee that things will not change, as China says they will not. Suppose that 1997 comes and there is a well-established democratic process and the then Government of China —who knows who they will be? — go back on their word and wish to abolish democracy? It would be extremely difficult for China to do that and retain any respect in the world with which it wishes to be friendly.
I wish to mention briefly the acceptance of any arrangements that the Government and the People's Republic of China might make. We must all be satisfied that anything that we do in the name of the people of Hong Kong meets with their approval. If by some terrible mischance an agreement that we make with the People's Republic of China meets with their disapproval, we shall know at once. People will withdraw their money, credit, confidence and their persons, if they can, so we shall know within 24 hours. If that does not happen, as I am sure it will not, we must be satisfied here that it meets with their approval.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that no agreement should be reached by the Government until Hong Kong has been democratised and the people of Hong Kong have their elected representatives to approve any final agreement?

Sir Humphrey Atkins: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a moment, I shall suggest some ways in which the acceptability can be tested. It might need to be tested in a few months' time. It is no use to suppose that we or Hong Kong could produce democratic institutions that would enable anyone to say that the elected representatives of Hong Kong approved the agreement. We cannot do it in four months. We must use the existing institutions.
I should say something about the Executive and Legislative Councils, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary paid tribute. Since then other hon. Members have run them down, I think too far. The Unofficial Members of the Executive and Legislative Councils, who do not claim to represent anyone but themselves—because they do not—work as hard and as honestly as they can to represent the views of Hong Kong.
I have two reasons for saying that. First, the legislative process in Hong Kong, initiated by the Governor and the Executive Council, requires the consent of the Legislative Council. The laws passed in Hong Kong do not cause uproar and rioting, because the Members of the Executive and Legislative Councils have ensured that what they propose is acceptable by finding out what people think.
Secondly, when I was there three weeks ago, I asked everyone I could see — high and low, British and Chinese, old and young, rich and poor — what they believed, and I formed an opinion of the feeling in Hong Kong, based, I admit, on a tiny handful of people. On my last evening there I asked the Unofficial Members of the Executive and Legislative Councils what they believed the people wanted, and their replies coincided exactly with my opinion. It cannot be said that they are not representative. They are not elected, but they represent the feeling of Hong Kong.
However, on the question of acceptability, that is not enough. The House would not accept their word alone, because they are not elected. I hope that in the next few weeks and months my right hon. and learned Friend will discuss with the Hong Kong Government how best the test of acceptability can be carried out. There are various ways of doing it and various organisations that can be used, down to the district boards and the mutual aid committees. We should urge the Government of Hong Kong to address their mind to this so that, when the time comes, wherever it may be, when we and they are asked to consider a detailed agreement, we may know whether the people of Hong Kong approve or disapprove. We should know where we stand when we have to take a decision.
In the meantime, I wish my right hon. and learned Friend well in his further dealings with the People's Republic of China. I hope that he will emphasise all the time that the guarantee that the people in Hong Kong seek can be given by the Chinese Government rather than by
Us.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: It is a great honour to follow the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins); I am in agreement with many of his comments, especially about acceptance. There is a legend about the foundation of Hong Kong or, more precisely, Kowloon, which held that the last Sung emperor sailed through the harbour with his court in the 12th century when he was fleeing from the Mongols. He asked a philosopher sage in his court what the name of the place was. He was told that it was Jiulung, which meant the nine dragons. The emperor, knowing—as hon. Members may not know—that every Chinese mountain maintains a dragon, counted only eight mountains. He questioned his adviser about how the name could mean nine dragons. The adviser said, "You, sir, are so powerful that you are the ninth dragon."
Perhaps it is of interest to the House to reflect that as in 12th century China so in 20th century Britain, sycophancy is a necessary attribute for the powerful person looking for preferment. The exchange which followed was the most significant. The emperor asked his adviser, "What shall this place be?" The adviser replied "One day a million lights will burn here, but not for long." That story was told to me by a member and representative of the People's Republic of China. It is the concern of all who are in any way connected with this problem, be they in the House, in the Government or among the people of Hong Kong, as the right hon. Member for Spelthorne and the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) said, that that prophecy never comes to pass; I am sure that is in the mind of the People's Republic of China as well.
In a sense, that is what the Foreign Secretary referred to as the common interest that binds all parties together. We are in a very delicate and difficult situation. Any loss of confidence, such as referred to by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), would be disastrous; it would be a human and an international tragedy on a massive scale. It is against that background that the Government have conducted negotiations and that we have to make our comments.
I join with the right hon. Member for Leeds, East in paying tribute to the Foreign Secretary for the way he has handled affairs up to now, notwithstanding the fact that his job was made immeasurably more difficult by the unsagacious and perhaps intemperate comments of the


Prime Minister. Nevertheless, we seem to be back on course. I should also like to join other hon. Members in paying tribute to the flexibility and common sense of the People's Republic of China on these matters.
The problem seems to split into two parts. The first is the problem of the territory and the second the problem of the people of Hong Kong. About the territory there can be very little argument, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East made clear. We have no option; 1997 is the cut-off date. There has never been any option about what we should do with the territory of Hong Kong, should it be demanded back by the People's Republic of China. Therefore, it is right that the discussions about the territory of Hong Kong should be conducted entirely bilaterally and of necessity in confidence.
The problem of the people of Hong Kong however may well have some elements which extend beyond the purely bilateral relationship. There are wider implications to which I should like to turn my attention. The first is acceptance, which was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Spelthorne and others. We know that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have both said that Parliament must take account of the views of the Hong Kong people and must ensure that the proposals are acceptable to them. I do not think that that is far off their exact words. The key question in everybody's mind is how that will be put to the test. That was also in the paper put forward by UMELCO.
However it should be done, we have to recognise that that is a problem and the responsibility and duty for assessing that acceptability rests in the House alone. It cannot be expressed through any organ of the existing Hong Kong Government. The ultimate duty and burden of ensuring the rights of the people of Hong Kong lies in this House alone. It is we who must accept that responsibility. It may be that we have used the Hong Kong Government as an agent to administer the colony. It may be, as the Foreign Secretary said, that the Hong Kong Government have a greater degree of autonomy. But that is not a comment upon the responsibility for making that assessment. It remains the case that the Hong Kong Government are a largely undemocratic institution.
I share the view put forward by the Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East and others. I might, as a good democrat, prefer to see a referendum. I do not share the view of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East about the uselessness of a referendum. Nevertheless, it is obviously the case that a referendum is not an available instrument in this case. We do not have the time and there is not the appropriate structure. Therefore, I propose that the Foreign Secretary might consider judging that acceptability by means of an organ of the House which is accountable to the House, which should carry out whatever investigation there is into the question of acceptability to the people of Hong Kong. It may be that the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs should go there and take evidence from the broadest selection of the people possible. At all events, it is the House that must make that decision and whoever makes the report should be accountable to the House.
Citizenship was touched upon by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in much more eloquent terms than I can discuss that problem. Nevertheless, the House should be conscious that Britain

may for the first time, by Act of Parliament, remove even the limited form of nationality which the people of Hong Kong now enjoy and hand them over lock, stock and barrel to the Chinese Government. The problem was graphically expressed by a Hong Kong resident when he told me the other day that although it is perfectly acceptable that when the tenancy on a block of flats runs out it should be handed back to the owners, it is unusual to hand over the office staff at the same time. That is something that we have not done before.
We must recognise that the citizenship of Hong Kong is central to the freedom of movement both before and after 1997. Unless we can solve that, it will be a pretty empty guarantee merely to say that there will be freedom of movement—free borders—as the present opportunity to move freely between trading nations is considerably reduced for the holder of a passport from the People's Republic of China.
We must ask the Foreign Secretary what assurances he can give that existing nationals will be allowed to choose whether to retain their British passport for themselves and their children. Clearly, if the Foreign Secretary is unable to give that assurance, as I think we all understand he may well be, that situation must be made clear as soon as possible, as the right hon. Member for Down, South said. In other words, what will be the status of the people of Hong Kong? The lack of knowledge about that status is one of the biggest areas which is causing concern and uncertainty about the future.
Thirdly, there is freedom of movement. We have said that there will be freedom of movement and the People's Republic of China have also said that, following 1997, in the 50-year period, the borders will be open. Nevertheless, we should recognise, in a manner which has not been expressed in the House so far, that nearly half the population of Hong Kong have fled from China to place themselves under the protection of Britain. It is a grave matter indeed if, by Act of Parliament, we hand those people back to the very institutions from which they fled. I am not sure whether we can do much about that, but perhaps we can.
However, we must recognise the considerable concern, which has not been reflected in some of the speeches so far. We may be talking about open borders, but there is a hollow promise indeed in the concept of open borders and freedom of movement unless there is somewhere to which to go. We must be careful, of course, not to encourage an exodus, which would be the very worst thing, as all right hon. and hon. Members have said, in prospect for the people of Hong Kong. It is vital not to do anything that will positively encourage that. Nevertheless, the Government should recognise that this is a matter that causes great concern, and that may have dimensions that extend beyond the purely bilateral relations and the bilateral discusions with China.
On the question of democratisation, on which other hon. Members have spoken, I take the view that, as the governing power of Hong Kong, we have been disgracefully tardy in introducing democratisation into Hong Kong. We have always taken refuge behind the idea that any further democratisation of Hong Kong would be unacceptable to the People's Republic of China. I think that view has now largely been exposed as nonsense. As other hon. Members have said, I believe that this provides


some kind of guarantee about the future that the people of Hong Kong need, and that will assure them about the future.

Mr. Adley: In defence of previous British Governments, it must be made clear that the Chinese Government have always regarded Hong Kong as a Chinese city, and that they would not countenance a foreign Government — for example, Britain — making constitutional changes. That position has changed 100 per cent., because they themselves are now involved in the negotiations, and that is the great strength and guarantee for the future of the people of Hong Kong.

Mr. Ashdown: If the hon. Gentleman is making the point that we can go further towards democratisation now than we otherwise could have done hitherto, I will accept that. However, I will not accept that we could not have gone further than we have done in the period up to now. I think that we have used that as the mechanism by which to shelter.
The Foreign Secretary has said that we will now make moves towards a more representative Government. We must ask exactly what the Government intend to do. Do the Government intend to leave a democratic council that could be a focus for the aspirations of the Hong Kong people and a guarantor to some degree of the freedoms that the Communist authorities are going to say are peculiarly theirs, or is it their intention simply to preserve the status quo and the system of nominated executive and legislative councils, with a view to handing the entire autocratic system over to the Chinese Government in 1997? From what the Foreign Secretary has currently said, I do not believe that that is our view—and it is not the Chinese view — about what ought to happen. It is important, however, that the Foreign Secretary and the Government put some flesh on the rhetoric of increasing democratisation very quickly. As the hon. Member for Christchurch said—I absolutely agree with him—if I may paraphrase him, in this issue, we cannot go too far or too fast. No doubt we will come to a point which becomes unacceptable to the Chinese Government in due course, but let us test their word and their agreement that we can go ahead.
I deal lastly with the run-up to 1997. There are two questions of prominence in this respect. The first is what position, if any, the Chinese Government and the Government of Hong Kong will have up to 1997. My discussions with representatives of the People's Republic of China show that they require to have no formal representation, and that they will be happy with the informal representation and consultation that takes place at present. That is an important point that I hope the Foreign Secretary will make clear in any reply that he may give.
Great and difficult issues are involved here, as other hon. and right hon. Members have said. The greatest issue is that we are determining the future not only of a territory but of 5 million people who, with their predecessors, for the last 140 years have placed themselves under our protection, and our Government. I suggest that the issue of the territory of Hong Kong is a minor one compared with the issue of the future freedoms and liberty of the Hong Kong people. The House historically has always been at its best in dealing wth the issue of liberty, but I suspect that it has never had to face a problem as difficult and as delicate as this one.
I ask the Foreign Secretary to recognise that it will not be acceptable, at least to Liberals, and I believe to many hon. Members, that the key decisions affecting the future of the people of Hong Kong should be taken anywhere but in the House. In particular, let the Foreign Secretary be aware that, although the Hong Kong Administration will have an important role to play in managing the decisions that we take, it is ultimately our responsibility and ours alone to ensure that the agreement reached with the Chinese Government guarantees the future of the people of Hong Kong, and is acceptable to them.

Sir Paul Bryan (Boothferry): This is developing into an extremely constructive debate and I hope that it will be widely followed in Hong Kong. I do not want to dwell on the past, but I should like to reply to one or two statements that have been made so far.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) implied that it would have been far better if the statement made by the Foreign Secretary in the past few days had been made in 1982. I was in Peking and Hong Kong in 1982 at the time of the Prime Minister's visit, and when one tried to discover the opinions of the people here, they constantly repeated, "We want something as near the status quo as possible." That implied a continuing British presence in some form. If the Foreign Secretary's statement, which is so appropriate now, had been made at that time, the cry in Hong Kong would have been, "Sell-out."
The negotiations have been hard going and we should pay tribute to our negotiators. We have been extremely well served by Sir Edward Youde, the Governor and former ambassador to Peking — a man with vast knowledge and experience of China and the Chinese. He is a perfect successor to Lord MacLehose, who will go down in history as one of the great Governors of Hong Kong. Sir Percy Craddock, the previous ambassador in Peking, is respected by the Chinese, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was wise, on his retirement, to take him into her office as an advisor while the negotiations continue.
Before the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins), not many kind words had been said about the Unofficial Members. It would be unfortunate if the debate passed without an expression of considerable gratitude being made to the 42 Unofficial Members, some of whom are here today. They work hard in the cause of Hong Kong without reward. They toil on countless committees and are bound to have knowledge of what is happening in Hong Kong.
The UMELCO office is a cross between a citizen's advice bureau and an ombudsman's office. There is plenty of knowledge of Hong Kong people at all levels there. I do not know whether the Unofficial Members are fully qualified to speak for Hong Kong. But who is? I know that the people of Hong Kong expect those Members to speak for them, and, if they had not done so, the people would have wanted to know why.

Mr. Parry: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that an ombudsman should be appointed in Hong Kong as a matter of urgency? I have made that suggestion previously, but it has always beeen rejected.

Sir Paul Bryan: No doubt that, like democracy and so on, is one of the many problems ahead of us, but we cannot cover it in this debate.
The statement of the Unofficial Members listed their six major worries, two questions, four conditions, and so on. The Members request guarantees that are probably impracticable and ask questions that are probably unanswerable. Nevertheless, it is as well that we read the document to remind ourselves of the unexpressed doubt behind that statement. There is an unexpressed, but justified, doubt about whether British negotiators can really understand the feelings of people in Hong Kong in their unique situation.
It is impossible for us, who expect to end our lives in the country where we were born, to put ourselves in the position of, say, a man who, at great personal peril, has fled from a regime that he abhors; spent a decade or so building up a new life for his family; achieved for them a standard of living of which they would never have dreamt; learned to appreciate a freedom of movement, choice and opinion that he would never have thought possible; only to find that the regime from which he fled is about to take him over again. To add to his worries, memories are kept fresh by the proximity of China and a continuing stream of immigrants with accounts of life there. It is hard for such a man to believe in the promise that after 1997 Hong Kong's existing systems and life style will remain unchanged. It is entirely natural that he should search for assurances and guarantees.
However, we must face the fact that, even if the negotiators succeed in obtaining every assurance and guarantee mentioned in the UMELCO statement, many people will remain unconvinced and will still ask—as the statement does—for assurances that the assurances will be observed.
In this crisis of credibility, we must do our best to get as detailed an agreement as possible. However, our hopes cannot be high. The Chinese prefer to deal in broad terms, and tend to be insulted by suggestions that these must be reinforced by detail to make sure that they are honoured. Our first priority is to negotiate strongly for the right agreement, as my right hon. and learned Friend said. I am sure that he will agree that the Chinese respect firmness in negotiation.
Having said that, we must put the present into perspective. Important though an agreement appears now, when we look back in 20 years' time I doubt whether the agreement of 1984 will stand out as an historic milestone. Our confidence, or disillusion, will be caused by the course of events in Hong Kong in the 13 years after 1984. The prospects for that period are not unfavourable. That should be declared loud and clear. We should be spreading optimism as much as we can.
First and foremost, I believe that China is honest in its expressed undertaking to allow Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy, enjoying the existing systems and freedoms and the free market economy. It is—as has been said this evening—in the interests of the Chinese to do so. China is a proud nation, emerging as one of the great powers of the 21st century; it cannot want to be seen in the eyes of the world as allowing Hong Kong—one of the most remarkable success stories in history — to collapse in its hands. That would involve a tremendous loss of face, apart from the harm that it would do to Chinese hopes of a settlement with Taiwan.
The 21st century will be the century of the Pacific basin. To be in possession of the financial centre of the Pacific basin and the third biggest container port in the world will be of inestimable advantage to China. Any abrupt dismantling of the British-type legal system would quickly disrupt the investment climate in Hong Kong and put an end to its financial supremacy. Any restrictions on currency movements or travel would have the same effect. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne has said, the 40 per cent. of its currency which China earns with comparative ease through Hong Kong depends upon the maintenance of a financial system very similar to the present one.
A vast reservoir of expertise and limitless foreign capital have made Hong Kong a sensational industrial success; China is eager to take advantage of its technology. China's huge investment in the industrial area of Shenzhen just over the border is dependent on technology from Hong Kong. Last May I was in Peking attending the signing of a joint venture agreement on semi-submersible rigs for the south China sea oilfield. I got some idea of the value the Chinese attach to technology from abroad. Hong Kong is where it is most readily available.

Mr. Dykes: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is even more remarkable that, during the negotiations, large amounts of investment capital are coming in from Japan, America and elsewhere, and that China is buying considerable assets in Hong Kong? Even Jardines has emphasised that, although it will change its domicile technically, it will not reduce any of its assets in Hong Kong.

Sir Paul Bryan: Indeed, some firms are moving their headquarters to Hong Kong. We all know that, with the Chinese, patriotism — and hence sovereignty — comes first, but, for the reasons that I have given, they must want Hong Kong to continue on its present course with as little upset as possible. I am sure that China will pursue that end.
No country has acquired more experience of dealing with international problems than Great Britain. The challenge of Hong Kong in the next 13 years is unique, even in our history, but certainly not impossible. Hong Kong people are highly educated and sophisticated, and there will be no difficulty in gradually building up an Administration that is manned almost entirely by local people. In contrast to the right hon. Member for Leeds, East, I believe that time is on our side. To maintain confidence in Hong Kong and abroad, we should not be in a hurry to hand over the reins. Nor will the economy stand still. Just think of what has happened in Hong Kong in the past 13 years. Industry is fully equipped to take advantage of the technological revolution; expansion by 1997 could be even greater than that which has occurred since 1971. Living standards will continue to rise.
Steady nerves and patience will be the order of the day. The people of Hong Kong have shown an astonishing ability to adjust, and I have no doubt that they will respond to changing circumstances once again. The onus will increasingly be on them to provide leadership and initiative. The combination of China's sincerity and avowed intention to give Hong Kong autonomy, and faith in the capacity of the people of Hong Kong to justify that autonomy gives us grounds for a hopeful future. There is a fund of good will in Britain towards the people of Hong Kong on which they can draw for many years to come.

Mr. Robert Parry: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate, as I have a long interest in China and Hong Kong and represent the oldest Chinese community in western Europe.
As many hon. Members wish to speak, I shall be as brief as possible. In accordance with my interests and anxiety about human rights and civil liberties, the House will not be surprised if I spend most of my time dealing with them and with democracy and democratic reform. I shall criticise the lack of democracy and the suppression of the weak and poor in this last bastion of British capitalism and imperialism.
I am the president of the Association for Democracy in Hong Kong and a patron of the United Nations Association in Hong Kong and have kept close contact with most grassroots organisations there such as elected urban councillors, the Society of Community Organisations, tenant associations, trade unions, church workers, the Heung Yee Kuk—representatives of villages in the New Territories — and social and welfare workers. I shall refer later to religious workers, because this is another important point.
I have always supported the campaign for democracy in Hong Kong and for a directly elected urban council, thus doing away with the appointed members of the council, and for a form of a direct election to the Legislative Council. I am delighted, after all these years, to see that it is China that is now pressing for reform. What would have appeared an impossibility three years ago now looks likely to take place.
I have always been strongly supported in my campaign by an elected member of the urban council, Mrs. Elsie Elliott, and a former elected councillor, Mr. Tsin Sai Nin. Both of these courageous people have unfortunately suffered in health recently, and part of their problems have been the strenuous efforts that they have put in on behalf of the ordinary people of Hong Kong. Mr. Tsin Sai Nin is the present general secretary of the Association for Democracy.
Dr. L. K. Ding is associated with the delegation from the grass roots, that has been mentioned, and he has always been an ardent campaigner. He is a devout Methodist and chairman of the Hong Kong Christian Association. I met him and his delegation last week, as did a number of other hon. Members. After listening to them, we agreed to support their campaign for local democracy. The urban council should be directly elected and it can then elect a mayor or chairman.
I should support the same system in the fast-expanding towns in the New Territories such as Sha Tin, Yeun Long, Tsuen Wan, Tai Po and Tuen Mun. It is absurd for towns such as Tsuen Wan, with a population larger than Liverpool and Manchester, to be run only by district boards with advisory powers. That is why direct elections to these fairly big towns should take place in any democratic reform. I hope that the Government will press for a directly elected assembly based on universal sufferage open to all citizens over 18. The present ExCo and LegCo are made up of Government officials and of wealthy business people who are usually yes-men, who support the Government and who will not support the people in their campaigns for democracy and civil liberties.
Mrs. Elliott was awarded the Magsaysay prize, which is the equivalent of the Nobel prize in Asia and is awarded by the Magsaysay foundation. She received it for her efforts on behalf of the poor and the downtrodden in Hong Kong over many years. I have wondered why Mrs. Elliott, despite her tremendous record, has not been appointed to LegCo. Is it because she is not a yes-woman and would embarrass the Government and the establishment?
I recall on visits to the colony witnessing the supression of the civil liberties and rights of the vulnerable and the weak. I particularly remember 1979, when I was on a delegation with my hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans). We saw ordinary people, small business people and tenants practically burnt out of their homes and flats to make way for the mass transit railway. We saw a society verging on a police state, with the police using gas and smoke bombs against women, children and old people. We saw corrupt members of the police force operating protection rackets against humble hawkers and street traders. There were many of these incidents and they made me and my colleagues feel ashamed that this should happen in a colony flying the British flag.
Conservative Members may not agree with what I say, but this is the truth. There is ample evidence in films, on television, newsreels and on photographs and reports in the quality English language newspapers such as the South China Morning Post and the Hong Kong Standard. That is why that form of repression was unnecessary. I fully support the campaign led by Dr. Ding and his people who, I believe, are still in the United Kingdom.
Religious freedom is another important issue. All people have the right to practise their faith. I have received a letter from Monsigneur Vincent Nichols, who is the general secretary of the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales, with a copy of an expression of concern from the Roman Catholic bishops of Hong Kong. I have sent copies of both documents to the Secretary of State, and I hope that he will send me a full reply after studying them.
The Catholic church, of which I am a member, has been established in the colony since 1841. It has played a significant part in Hong Kong's development, especially in education. There are about 266,000 Catholics and 313 Catholic schools with over 300,000 pupils, of whom more than 90 per cent. are non-Catholics. The church is working also in the areas of health care, social welfare and hospitals. In the past, I have met many priests and nuns who have worked with the homeless and rootless, especially the Mary Knoll nuns and Filipino, Irish, British and American nuns who do a tremendous job among the really poor people of Hong Kong.
Many well-known and respected members of Hong Kong society were educated by the La Salle Brothers, including Mr. Sonny Salles, who was for many years chairman of the urban council, Councillor Hilton Cheong-Leen, the present chairman, and an old friend of mine, Dr. Peter H. Y. Tang from the New Territories. The present Patriotic Catholic church in China is not in communion with Rome. Some years ago, I met the Bishop of Peking, Bishop Fu, who represents the Patriotic Catholic church. I discussed the problems with him. Many Catholic bishops and priests are still in prison in China, some of whom have been held for many years.
On 23 April, Mr. Ji Peng-Fei, the director of the Hong Kong-Macao office, in a statement made in Peking to


visiting urban councillors, said that the Chinese would guarantee religious freedom when China regained sovereignty in 1997. He said also that churches would be able to maintain links with their counterparts in the rest of the world and that the Catholic church in Hong Kong would be allowed to remain subordinate to the Vatican. I hope that that assurance will be carried out and that all Christians — Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists and Lutherans—among whom I have many friends in Hong Kong, will be treated in the same way and that ethnic minorities, such as the Moslems and the Sikhs, can practise their faith freely.
Many years ago, Premier Chou En-Lai, when questioned on when China would regain Hong Kong, said, "When the time is ripe." That time is rapidly approaching. I hope and trust that we shall live to see Hong Kong a place of prosperity, stability and confidence, where there is freedom of religion, a free assembly and the existing judical system, and that there will be a democratic system of government before it returns to the mainland in 1997. I hope sincerely that those aspirations will be realised.

Mr. Julian Amery: My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has given us an encouraging report of the progress of negotiations and, on the whole, he was justified in doing so. But hon. Members would delude themselves if they did not recognise that we are facing a deep conflict of obligations in the decisions that are bound to be taken. We have a moral obligation to the people of Hong Kong, half of whom were born under the control of the Crown and have never shown much wish to leave. The other half have escaped to the protection of the Crown—some for economic, and a few for political, reasons. The majority do not want to lose their British allegiance. We must acknowledge that a large number of them are living in what we still regard as sovereign British territory. The principle of self-determination, about which we have often spoken, is at issue.
On the other hand, we know that in 13 years we shall lose the legal tenure over nine tenths of the territory. No one believes that we could hold the sovereign territory without the New Territories. Anyway, there is the undeniable fact that China could enforce its legal rights at any moment if it so chose. Given the legal position and the balance of power, we are not in a position to drive a bargain.
Curiously, the strength of our negotiating position lies in the weakness of our hand. Under British rule, Hong Kong rose from being a fishing village set among rocks to what we might call the Venice of the far east. The essence of Hong Kong's strength lies not in the skyscrapers, the wharves, the airports and the factories—it lies in the invisibles such as wealth, brains and skills. If our negotiating team and the Chinese negotiating team can arrive at an agreement, all that may continue. If China wanted only the assets, it could put its hand on them, as it did in Shanghai. The rocks would then return to rocks littered with buildings testifying to Hong Kong's former glory.
The pragmatic temper of the present leaders in Peking, their material interests, their interest in maintaining good relations with the West, and their interest in finding a peaceful solution to the Taiwan problem, encourage them

to reach the sort of settlement that we believe to be necessary to the future of Hong Kong. Therefore, our task is not to drive a bargain, but to try to persuade China of the assurances needed to satisfy opinion in Hong Kong and of the form in which those assurances are given.
My right hon. and learned Friend has already discussed the economic, legal and security systems and, as many hon. Members have mentioned, the future self-government of the country. The status of British and other foreign interests and their consular protection will also be very important. Nothing will give more confidence to the people of Hong Kong than the knowledge that outside business interests are operating alongside their business interests.
However exemplary and strong are the assurances given, Hong Kong opinion will not be easily satisfied. The people have seen the past convulsions through which the People's Republic of China has passed since the revolution in 1949.
Where Jardine Matheson leads, others will be tempted to follow. How far the process will go depends not just on the assurances, but on the day-to-day conduct of relations between Hong Kong and Peking.
That brings me to the issue of the political institutions of Hong Kong.
Authority forgets a dying king.
From now on, elements will emerge of the kind of political structure that the people of Hong Kong wish to see when they become an autonomous district of the People's Republic of China. We can have some influence on how those elements evolve, but the most important element will be how far Peking will encourage and tolerate the emergence of political structures which represent the mercantile and cosmopolitan character of Hong Kong. It is in those 13 years, in the conduct of Peking's relations with Hong Kong and in the overall evolution of China, that the validity of the assurances given this autumn will be tested and evaluated. If they are found to be unsatisfactory, many will leave the colony, and over 13 years they will find many ways to do so.
We shall be faced with a number of applications. We have obligations to those servants of the Crown who will be at some risk because of their past service to the Crown. They must be honoured in full. Beyond that, I should hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will be generous, though necessarily selective, in his attitude to applications to come here. Those with capital should be welcomed, and so should those with skills. Over the years, Britain has gained from its immigrant elite. We have had Huguenots from France and Jews from central and eastern Europe and east African Asians, almost all of whom have made good since they came. The Chinese community in Great Britain has a good record. They could only improve that record if they were strengthened by those who have proved themselves in Hong Kong.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people from other countries are going to Hong Kong at the moment offering national citizenship to those who are prepared to bring their prosperous enterprises from Hong Kong?

Mr. Amery: Yes, I am aware of that. I hope that we shall have our share of the best of Hong Kong.
It is only natural that the majority of people will stay, but if we can contrive, in agreement with the People's Republic of China, a status for foreign interests, British,


Japanese and American — and the Japanese and American are larger than ours—and the kind of legal and political framework which my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary was discussing, then, but only then, Hong Kong will continue to be what it has always been—not a bone of contention, but a valuable and viable link between the awakening giant of China and the industrialised West.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I am not certain that I followed clearly what the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavillion (Mr. Amery) said, but if his attitude to Jardine Matheson and to capital being lost to Hong Kong is as I understand it, it is not a message that I should like to go from the debate. Jardine Matheson owed much more to Hong Kong than its action demonstrated. The best service that we, as a House, can do for the people of Hong Kong is to join my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) in saying that the most essential ingredient of our discussions is the necessity that there should be confidence in the future of Hong Kong and in the outcome of these most delicate negotiations.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool. Riverside (Mr. Parry) on his excellent speech and agree with the remarks that he made about democracy.
This morning, The Guardian leader summed it up for me. It said:
It may be tempting for Hong Kong's vested interests to organise a rearguard action against the agreement. Those who have already made arrangements to leave have little to lose by exploiting the genuine anxieties of those who will have to stay.
We owe an obligation to the mass of the people of Hong Kong. For that reason, hon. Members on both sides of the House should be wishing success to the negotiations.
Reference has been made to the position, history and attitudes of the Chinese. I visited Hong Kong recently with my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). We spent a day in China, but had the opportunity to speak to many people from Hong Kong, and Shenzhen, the economic zone in China. My impression was that the Chinese are convinced that the negotiations ought to succeed. Although no one can be given or asked for guarantees, I feel that the Chinese are anxious that, given the importance to them of Hong Kong and the economic flow that is in many ways their shop window, it does not make sense for them to take any action that would suggest, especially to the Soviet Union, about which the Chinese were desperately worried, that co-existence between China, Hong Kong and the New Territories was not possible. I do not believe that the Chinese want to suggest that.
Even if there were difficulties—I am sure that the Foreign Secretary and the Minister have greater insight into the negotiations than Back Benchers—I believe that Hong Kong is bound to change, even without the problems caused by the expiry of the lease in 1997. There is much to be said in favour of Hong Kong. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton and I visited some of its educational establishments and saw some of its social work and social services provisions. We were much impressed. We met young people who enjoy an educational system that is manifestly improving. Even if we did not debate the matter tonight, those young people in Hong Kong would want to have a say in their future. They are articulate, well-educated young people and they are not prepared to accept

the undemocratic nature of Hong Kong society, which was outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Riverside, or the imposition of another style of government that might appeal to other hon. Members.
The time is bound to come when we shall want to express views as Members of the British Parliament on what should be happening in Hong Kong or between Hong Kong and China. We shall accept that there is a Hong Kong that is worthy of expressing its own views. Those young people are articulate and capable of expressing their views and concern about their future, not just in the shape of co-existence between themselves and China, important though that is, but in peaceful co-existence between Hong Kong and other nations, which my hon. Friends believe to be important in every part of the world.
China is certainly watching Singapore and Hong Kong. As the capitalist system develops, it does not help the Chinese if they attempt to bully Hong Kong, now, in the transitional period or after 1997, into accepting a life style that is repugnant to the majority of its people. Therefore, I want to offer some words of encouragement to the Foreign Secretary in this difficult situation.
Hong Kong has problems which deserve urgent consideration. I mentioned one of them last time we debated these matters. The problem of refugees still exists. In the earlier debate I mentioned the nine-year-old boy whom we saw in a closed refugee camp. I know that the Foreign Secretary has addressed himself to the problem, but it cannot simply be set aside as something to be dealt with in 10 or 20 years' time, or even later than that. The problem is with us now. If I have been a little disappointed—only a little—with some of the views expressed by delegations from Hong Kong this week, it is because not one of them referred to that problem. A sign of the growing maturity of the people of Hong Kong is the acceptance that there is a problem—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister for the Adjournment of the House may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Twelve o'clock. — [Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Mr. Clarke: We shall clearly return to the problem before us today. I do not know the Government's timetable, but I do not believe that they should rush it. Unlike some hon. Members, I believe that it may be important to deal with the small print. The Chinese say that they honour agreements, so let us be absolutely clear about the details of the agreement in the interests of all the people of Hong Kong. When the Minister considers the timetable, I hope that he will accept that Members of Parliament will have a final say in these matters. I believe, however, that speed is less important than getting this right.
In conclusion, in many ways the people of Hong Kong have had a great past. I believe that they could influence China and some of the excesses there, such as the undeniable removals of human rights about which we have heard so much. I believe that Hong Kong is capable of that. Here I echo the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East. Confidence can lead to confidence, but, equally, lack of confidence can be infectious. If the people of Hong Kong accept the spirit of the views of the people of Great Britain—we want democracy to flourish there and prosperity to continue,


and the people of Hong Kong to contribute to peaceful co-existence —I believe that the future of the people of Hong Kong can be as great and glorious as their past.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Although I have no personal interest to declare, I should tell the House that my wife's family has an interest in a company that was earlier the subject of some unattractive and intemperate remarks by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey).
This is a debate of the highest importance because it takes place against a difficult and emotive background. Furthermore — for a change — every sentiment and nuance will be carefully weighed not only in Hong Kong but in Peking. I shall therefore try to measure carefully what I have to say in my brief contribution.
I believe that the People's Republic of China and Great Britain are fundamentally good friends. We value our relationship with that country and we wish it well. Many of us recognise the great difficulties that China has to overcome and the significant strides that it is now making.
Quite apart from the ties of colony and formal relationships, Hong Kong is in its own right a highly valued friend of Great Britain. On many occasions it has provided both physical and material help to this country. I ask the Chinese Government to accept and understand that strong, emotional bonds exist between us.
China and Hong Kong have for generations had an important and increasingly vital relationship. It is greatly valued by both sides for many obvious reasons. Thus, there exists a tangled skein of deep and complex ties and interests and, not unnaturally, great anxieties and fears about the future. Accordingly, it is entirely correct and proper that the interests of the people of Hong Kong should be reflected in this debate. They are, not unnaturally, considerable and the Chinese must accept that they cannot be lightly brushed aside.
I further ask our good friends in Peking to accept, even if they do not understand it, that the role of the British Parliament is of the highest importance. For obvious reasons my right hon. and learned Friend is unable to tell the House the real details of the talks that are taking place. However, I say to him that it is in the interests of the people of Hong Kong and, in many respects, of the Chinese Government to seek to obtain as detailed an agreement as possible, especially in respect of fundamental liberties, peace, order and good Government. It would be naive and foolish to talk of guarantees. We should seek earnest and realistic assurances from the Chinese Government. They must also understand that face is also important to the British Parliament and British people. My right hon. and learned Friend must tell the People's Republic of China that this House cannot and will not be railroaded or steamrollered into an agreement.
If I were Chinese, it would be of the highest importance for the present and future interests and honour of my country to arrive at a definitive, clear and equable agreement. Furthermore, I would feel a surge of historic destiny and a desire for the future reunification of China. I hope that I would think most carefully about the impact of my Government's actions in Hong Kong on the minds of the people of Taiwan, and on the deep-seated and fundamental aspirations of the people on mainland China.
If we can safeguard the liberties and the prosperity of the people of Hong Kong, which I am sure we can—it must also be in China's undoubted greater interest—Kong Kong will have a great and peaceful future. The ingenuity, resourcefulness and determination of its people will be alive to advance still further, to the benefit of all.
Essentially I am optimistic. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the Government's progress. At this time calm and steady counsels should prevail if we are to continue along the path to a harmonious, realistic and above all, honourable solution.

Sir Peter Blaker: I have an interest to declare, which is no longer financial and which I share with the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray)—I was born in Hong Kong. My family's connection with Hong Kong goes back to 12 years after the signing of the 1898 treaty. Therefore, I have a deep interest in securing a satisfactory future for the people of Hong Kong, which will secure their way of life and freedom.
Hong Kong's achievements are extraordinary. In 1945, the population was half a million and it was recovering from four years of Japanese occupation. The population is now 11 times that figure, yet their standard of living is one of the highest in Asia. Those 5·5 million people have a foreign trade which, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said, is twice that of India, which has a population of 700 million. Hong Kong vies with Japan for the role of main British export market in Asia. It has, by its own efforts, turned itself into a world financial centre, not simply a regional one. If India was the jewel in the crown up to 1947, in recent years Hong Kong can claim to have taken over that role.
That has happened because under successive British Governments the people of Hong Kong have had freedom backed by British administration and English law. That has given full scope to the natural ingenuity, intelligence and energy of Hong Kong's people. I know of no more striking economic success in any part of the world than Hong Kong has achieved.
In 1898 our predecessors signed what seems to us now to be an extraordinary treaty. The Government have had no alternative but to pursue the broad course that they have, disagreeable though it may be to me and unattractive though it may be to the people of Hong Kong. I understand their anxieties. Although I was quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) as saying that the report by the members of the Executive and Legislative Councils was too pessimistic, we owe them a debt. It was right for them to come here and to seek such wide discussions with the Government, with all parties in the House and with anyone who wished to meet them. Their anxieties are shared by many in Hong Kong.
The visit has had the great merit of demonstrating to the Government of China that there are real anxieties in Hong Kong, anxieties which it is important for not only the British Government but the Government of China to allay. Without continued confidence in Hong Kong, whether on the part of its people or of outside investors, after 1997, Hong Kong might not be an asset to China but a burden. I was glad also to have talks with the other delegation from Hong Kong that is currently visiting Britain.
I am cautiously optimistic that we shall reach an acceptable agreement this year. The House knows that spokesmen for the Republic of China have in past months


repeatedly made statements which, if taken together, amount to promising the people of Hong Kong a way of life almost identical to that which they enjoy now; the right to manage their own affairs, their traditional freedom, their own convertible currency and their own legal system. What is more, they seem to promise direct trading links with the outside world.
However, it is not enough to have an agreement that is acceptable now. Between now and 1997 we must build, in co-operation with the Republic of China, layers of confidence among Hong Kong people about its future. We must also achieve confidence that the agreement will last. When I visited Hong Kong in January, I discovered that that latter point was one of the people's main anxieties. They believed that an agreement reached this year would probably be acceptable, but they were worried about its durability. They said, "What happens if there is a change of regime in Peking? What happens if there is another phenomenon like the cultural revolution?" They want reassurance on the durability of any agreement reached, even in those circumstances.
As many hon. Members have pointed out, in the nature of politics there can be no such thing as an absolute guarantee about the future, but it is significant—this is worth repeating time and time again—that in spite of all the upheavals in China since 1945, China has made no attempt at any time to intervene in the internal affairs of Hong Kong, in spite of the fact that the treaties governing Hong Kong are in the eyes of the Government in Peking unequal and invalid.
I should like to list a number of grounds for confidence that an agreement will last. This agreement will not be unequal. It is to be negotiated freely between the Government of China and the Government of the United Kingdom. I support those who have said that it should be solemn and should contain as much substance as possible. That too will help confidence.
I agree with those who have said that we should be developing Hong Kong's representative institutions. There are very good reasons why we have not developed them before; Peking would have viewed such a development with alarm. We have only to consider its behaviour when it went first to the United Nations; in the decolonisation committee it asked at once for the item on Hong Kong to be erased from the agenda. I do not go along with those hon. Members who have talked about the rapid democratisation of Hong Kong. We want measured development over the next 13 years which will mean that by 1997 there will be in position institutions which will hopefully require no change.
Another matter that gives ground for confidence is the development of the special economic zone of Shenzhen, inland from Hong Kong. The purpose of this zone is to allow China to learn about capitalism, but it also has a function as a buffer or insulator between Hong Kong and the rest of China. That buffer works to the advantage of both sides. Hon. Members who have seen it will have no doubt about the intention of the Government of China that the zone should be permanent. The border between it and the rest of China is much more solid and permanent than the border between the zone and Hong Kong; the buildings are built to last.
Then there is the development of other special economic zones. I believe that more than 20 are planned in China and they will be to the advantage of Hong Kong. Among others things, they will make Hong Kong less

conspicuous in is capitalist way of life, although I am confident that Hong Kong will remain permanently well ahead of the economic zones in its economic success.
As other hon. Members have said, the most important assurance about the future is self-interest. China has an immense stake in Hong Kong's economic success. It has a direct stake in getting one third of its foreign currency through Hong Kong and in its ownership of property and enterprises in Hong Kong. It has an indirect stake because of its need and desire for an opening to the world. It has recently been reaffirmed by Premier Zhao both in the United States, when he was there in January, and again yesterday that the policy of China's openness towards the world is long-term. If one asks oneself through what other territory China can pursue a policy of openness to the world, the answer is, none. Singapore is too far away, is only half Hong Kong's size and does not have Hong Kong's skills. There is no other place on the Chinese coast which can match Hong Kong's skills, capacity and location.
As has been pointed out, there is an assurance too in China's desire for the reunification of Taiwan with the mainland. Reunification is a top priority of the Government and the National Congress of Peking. It has been promoted in the batting order as recently as last year. We can be entirely confident that the Government of China understand how relevant is success or failure in Hong Kong to the ambition of China to secure the reunification of Taiwan with the mainland.
There is one point on which I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames). I believe the Government in Peking do understand that this Parliament in London has a role to play in relation to the agreement which we hope to see. They understand that the Government have said that any agreement must be acceptable to the people of Hong Kong.
I welcome the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said in his opening speech that the House will have an opportunity of knowing the views of the people of Hong Kong before we debate the draft agreement. It is in the interest of China that the agreement should be acceptable to the people of Hong Kong. They probably understand that. Only with consent will there be confidence and only with confidence will there be success. Britain and China have a common interest in getting a good agreement, by which I mean one which is not only acceptable to the people of Hong Kong now but one which will last.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: As has been demonstrated by the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker), two strands have emerged during the debate. One is the confidence of the House in the desire of the Republic of China to provide Hong Kong with a continuing way of life and to keep its word on that matter. The other is the concern and anxiety that hon. Members share for the people of Hong Kong and the deep desire that the way of life and success of that territory is maintained in future. The one thing that binds those two together which will ensure that everybody's aim is achieved is for confidence to be maintained during the course of the discussions and then, crucially, during the 13 years until 1997, as the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) said—although I did not agree with everything that he said.
I hope that the debate will have helped to sustain and prop up confidence in Hong Kong. I do not agree with some of the comments that have been made about the representations of UMELCO representatives in London this week. The House must recognise, as hon. Members sit there secure and comfortable in the knowledge that we have a certain and prosperous future, the depth of anxiety that exists in Hong Kong about the future of the people there. There is a lack of trust in the big bear neighbour over the border that may jeopardise their way of life and security in future. That depth of anxiety is real and it would be wrong of the House not to recognise it and see the ways in which it has been demonstrated by representations that have been made to us in the past couple of weeks. Those that know Hong Kong will well know the feelings and fears that exist there.
We have to accept the good faith of the Chinese Government in all that they have said. It would be wrong not to do so. The many comments that have expressed that view from both sides of the House today will have helped in relations with Peking because it is clear that their word is being taken as honourable and that it will be upheld. That will have been a helpful aspect of the debate, and I hope of assistance to the Government.
I want to comment a little further on one or two of the things that I think give rise to anxiety, and why I hope that the agreement, when it can be published, is as detailed as possible. One recognises that it is not necessarily possible at this juncture, 13 years before the end of the lease, for every detail to be contained in the agreement. Let us consider the position of the Army and of the police. The Hong Kong people have the prospect of the Ghurkas and the British Army moving out of their territory. We all remember the feelings of the people of Hong Kong when the Navy presence in Hong Kong was removed, and the fears to which that gave rise—this symbolic presence in the bay in Hong Kong. Every time that there has been a round of negotiations over cut-backs in presence of troops in Hong Kong, the anxiety to which I referred earlier, and which has now reached even greater proportions, has always been expressed. When the lease ends, there is the prospect that the Chinese Republican Army may be stationed in Hong Kong. Will it move into the barracks? Who will control it? Will it be the administration of Hong Kong, or will it be Peking? These are the questions and the realities that face people in Hong Kong. There may be good answers to these questions, but they are the sort of anxieties that people express.
Who will be responsible for administering the police? There have been great troubles in the past over the administration of the police force in Hong Kong. Who will be responsible for that, and for ensuring that there is not corruption and injustice? What will be the system? In view of the experience of past years, the people in Hong Kong naturally see these daily facts of life facing them, and are anxious about them. I therefore hope that as many details as possible will be given in the agreement.
I think that the people of Hong Kong have to accept that there cannot be any third party international guarantee in the agreement. Some people have suggested that this might be the case. I assume that the Peking Government and our Government will want to inform the United Nations, the GATT, various other such international bodies, and other Governments, of the arrangements that

have been agreed. I hope that that in itself will be enough to sustain confidence in Hong Kong as to the terms of the agreement reached. But to think that there can be some sort of UN guarantee or oversight of any agreement is an insult to Peking, and I think that it would be impossible to agree that with the administration in Peking.
On the question of the acceptability of the agreement to the people of Hong Kong, it has been made clear in the debate that it is not possible to have a referendum within the territory, as some hon. Members have suggested. I think there has been a considerable under-estimate of how much of an impression of the views of the people of Hong Kong can be obtained from the myriad bodies that represent different spectrums and levels of opinion there. Indeed, all the opinion polls that have been taken and published confirm the views that have been expressed across a broad spectrum, demonstrating what the opinion is. I think that it is perfectly acceptable, with the increased democracy that is envisaged, that we can get an accurate representation of the views of the people of Hong Kong.
Let me dwell briefly on the question of democracy. I am slightly amused at the turn-about that has taken place. The objective for some years now has been to extend democracy in Hong Kong, and I recall the Green Paper published in 1980, and the White Paper published in January 1981 that led to the extension of democracy into the district boards, and to the changes in the urban council. I remember, too, the debates at that time, and the stiff opposition in some sections of this country, and certainly in Hong Kong, to the extension of that democracy. I was told that Chinese people did not like that way of administering their local and national government, that they were not used to democracy and that they would not vote. When the elections were held, those people did vote, just as our constituents vote in local government elections. It is a pity that more progress has not been made at what we would regard as local government level in the territories so that the habit of democracy could have been firmly implanted before the negotiations began.
Some hon. Members have said that 13 years is a long time, but it is not a long time in which to get used to administration at local and territory level. Hong Kong has to change from a system of advisory district boards to a system in which the majority of board members will be elected. It will take a long time to work out and get used to the new relationships between elected members and officials and between members and the electorate.
We have had such a system for a long time, but 13 years is not a long time in which to put that system in place and get used to it. I regret that nothing was done earlier, but now that the system is being introduced, I hope that it will be done as rapidly as possible, so that it can operate effectively before the transition period ends.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) mentioned citizenship, which keeps cropping up. Reference has been made to the fact that some countries have offered to sell citizenship to Hong Kong citizens. I hope that that will not attract many people from Hong Kong and that confidence will be such that they will not feel the need to leave. Of course, many have split families, with relations living in other countries, and some have two homes, which gives them the opportunity of living elsewhere.
Those people are taking out that insurance policy, but they are retaining their homes in Hong Kong and are not deserting the ship. The overwhelming majority wish to


remain in Hong Kong and to play a full part in its life. The fact that 750,000 people went over the border into China during the new year festivities illustrates the close links between substantial sections of the population in Hong Kong and many families in China, and people's commitment to remain in Hong Kong after the leases expire. No one should underestimate that commitment, but we should understand the desire of some people to have an insurance policy.
I hope that, in case disaster should strike, the Government will keep America, Japan and the Commonwealth informed about the agreement and how the Government intend it to develop during the transition period. We want to carry the Commonwealth, America and other countries in the western world with us in reaching an agreement with China. We have heard today different approaches to this subject, but I hope that no one in Hong Kong will believe that hon. Members have first and foremost in their minds anything other than the security, prosperity and freedom of the people of that territory. For that reason I wish the Foreign Secretary every success in the negotiations and I hope that he will be able to sustain confidence and to reach an agreement with Peking that satisfies the people of Hong Kong and eventually this House, so that the transitional period will lead to the handover without any interruption of the way of life in the territory.

Mr. George Walden: If I were a Hong Kong Chinese listening to the debate, I would be gratified by the tributes paid to the territory, but I might be perturbed by the valedictory flavour of some of the remarks, especially perhaps those of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). Nevertheless, I pay tribute to the people of Hong Kong, as any one who has lived and worked there must do. I pay tribute to their intelligence and resourcefulness. I do so not in a valedictory spirit, because I believe that they have a sound future and that Britain has a role to play in that future. However, in one sense, I share the approach of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), because I, too, think that this is a time for clarity.
First and foremost, we must be clear about the guarantees. The main reason why there cannot be any guarantees in future is, as has been said, that there were none in the past. The reason why there never have been, and will not be, any guarantees has much to do with a certain unpredictability on the part of the regime in China. I do not say that the regime today is not predictable. Fortunately, there is what appears to be a very pragmatic regime. However, we all remember the different regime of not so long ago, and I should not wish to forecast exactly what sort of regime there will be in 13 years' time. We must be frank and honest about that.
Not so long ago, I had the job of trying to predict the internal politics of China, and I distinguished myself by my inaccuracy. I failed to see that Lin Piao, the closest comrade-in-arms of Mao Tse Tung, was a Soviet spy. I was not alone in that. I am not sure that even the Russians knew. That is an example of the unpredictable nature of Chinese internal politics.
I do not conclude from that—here I share the view of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East—that the future of Hong Kong is insecure. On the contrary. If we remember in detail what happened during the cultural

revolution, the turmoil that there was in China at that time and the political passions that were unleashed in Hong Kong, where I believe 55 people were killed—I saw some of the events at first hand—we must be impressed by the powers of resistance in China to the idea of rash action against Hong Kong. So far, the unpredictability of the regime in China has not worked against the interests of Hong Kong.
We must not think in terms of formal continuity. That is unattainable. Hong Kong's interests were defended in 1969 not by British sovereignty—which I regard as notional—nor by the British Administration, but by what one might call Chinese self-interest. We must aim for continuity of substance rather than of form.
I want to make three remarks about the substance. First, I join those hon. Members who have said that we need the most detailed agreement possible, particularly in the financial sphere. Generalised assurances are not enough for investors. I hope that, on the day, however difficult it may be, our negotiators will be able to secure something rather more precise.
Secondly, I hope that there will be a continued British presence in Hong Kong after 1997. I sometimes get the feeling that we shall clear out lock, stock and barrel, but I do not see why that should be so. We have had some rather generalised Chinese assurances to the effect that British subjects will be able to stay on. I hope that there will be quite a substantial British presence in the Administration there. If the Chinese can make that clear in a little more detail, that would be an element of continuity and reassurance for the population.
Thirdly, I should like to say something that will not please many on either side of the House and not everyone outside. I favour democracy—I regard it as a handy system—but when I see a band-wagon rushing past, my first inclination is to let it pass, especially if I feel that the people on it are not entirely sure where it is going. There is a band-wagon on democratisation in Hong Kong that worries me a little. When I lived in Hong Kong, there was frustration, which I found entirely understandable, at the lack of democracy. It is a sophisticated place full of enormously intelligent people. If I were one of them, I should also be frustrated. However, the very absence of democracy has been one of the features for continuity in Hong Kong. It is one of the reasons why the Chinese have not moved against it or been tempted to intervene. We should remember that, although it is right to develop the urban council and district boards, it would be wrong to get carried away or to encourage people to believe that what we regard as normal democratic institutions and party politics can have much of a future in Hong Kong.
There are three reasons for that. First, if we went a little too far in that direction, we could arouse suspicions in China that could affect the negotiations or the interim period before 1997. That would be dangerous.
Secondly, if we went too far and too quickly in democratisation, we could stir up commotion, conflict and latent political passions which I believe exist in the colony, and, in the worst circumstances, precipitate Chinese intervention that we all think would be damaging to the future of the colony.
Thirdly, even if we succeeded—it is unlikely—in creating Western-type democracy with parties or groups that looked like parties, that could cause instability after 1997, because we are dealing with a Communist country. It is a special form of Communist country, but most


Communist countries, including China, do not generally tolerate opposition. If there were two or three parties in Hong Kong in 1997, there could be an enormous temptation in Peking, bearing in mind that we do not know what type of regime there will be there in 1997, to control those parties as in eastern Europe where the various parties are remarkably similar.
I am not against democracy in Hong Kong. It should be developed, especially at local level. But we should bear all the factors in mind when thinking about the territory's future. It would be ironic indeed if, in our zeal to implant democracy in Hong Kong, we promoted circumstances in which the people there found themselves obliged to vote for the same party.
In case what I have said has sounded a little downbeat, I should like to repeat that I am not in a valedictory mood. We should continue to work on precisely the lines on which the Government are working. I am confident that we shall have a lot to do with the Chinese and the people of Hong Kong in the future, provided that we do not get carried away and are not too fatalistic.
If I have one criticism of the Government's handling of this matter so far, it would be not about matters of substance, but about a fatalistic tone I have detected—perhaps I am being sensitive—in some recent remarks. I see no cause for being too unrealistically optimistic, but I hope that we shall not be too fatalistic. I am confident about the colony's future. If I had more money, I would put it in Hong Kong.

Sir Ian Percival: After such a knowledgeable speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), I am loth to intervene as a new boy to the subject, but I have had the advantage of recently being in Hong Kong and want, therefore, to convey some of the impressions it made on me.
I was glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) and other hon. Friends have echoed what was said from the Front Benches about UMELCO. Of course it is not a perfect system, and its representatives are here speaking only for themselves. They do not purport to speak for the Government. But it is right that the other side of the picture should be mentioned in the House. They are part of a remarkable system.

Mr. Hal Miller: It is, indeed, remarkable.

Sir Ian Percival: One must see it to believe that it exists. That system comes a great deal closer to government and legislation by consensus than many other systems about which we know more. There are 42 men and women working jolly hard, and we should not underestimate or overlook the great support that they are now receiving from Hong Kong, from all kinds of associations. We should not underestimate either the channels of communication they have for ascertaining public opinion. I believe that they are members of 300 committees. There are also some 3,000 sub-committees. I wish that I had similar channels of communication for finding out the thoughts of my constituents.
I echo the caution of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham on the subject of "democracy", but for

differing reasons. We are apt to say the most hypocritical things in the name of democracy. Before we start screaming for more democracy, we should ask ourselves what we mean by it and whether we are talking about a system that would be of value to the people in question. Because we believe in democracy, we tend to think that what we see as democracy is good for everyone else. We can so easily be wrong, and I am glad that the warnings have been uttered.
Confidence is central to this issue. Not long ago, I too was in Hong Kong. It was a private, not an official visit. I met many people from many walks of life and came away with the unqualified impression that they have immense confidence in their ability to meet and overcome all the difficulties—provided that they are given the chance to do so. That is the big proviso. They have every reason to feel that confidence. Where else could we find a situation where, the population having multiplied elevenfold in 30-odd years, through the efforts of the Government and people working together—it is a joy to see that, because they could not have achieved so much except by working together — jobs, education and houses have been provided on an almost unbelievable scale. Those 5 million people have been given an equality of opportunity, and have had guaranteed for them freedoms the equal of ours and the envy of the rest of the world. Yes, judging from the past, the Hong Kong people have every reason to be confident.
It is not an exaggeration to say that one can feel the confidence. One can almost feel the vibes—I believe that is the modern term—and hear the pulse beating. If one wants to talk to anyone in management in Hong Kong between 7 am and 7 pm, one must ring him at his office; it is no good trying to contact him at home. It is not surprising, having regard to the quality of the people with whom we are dealing and their hard work that those achievements have been brought about and that they have confidence in themselves.
However, there is rather less than total confidence in the likelihood of Hong Kong being left to get on with the opportunity to develop the territory, as the people know they can and will, given the chance. Should we be surprised about that? Would not any of us, having been British all our lives, facing the possibility that quite soon we will be Chinese, and without any guarantees about what will happen, be very frightened about what might happen? It is not open to us to call that lack of confidence or pessimism. It is a very human reaction, and the more we recognise that, the better.
I hope that this debate has done a great deal of good in helping to overcome those wholly natural fears and in helping to restore a little more confidence in the intentions of both the People's Republic of China and ourselves. I say that for three special reasons. What my right hon. and learned Friend said must have done a great deal of good, and I thank him for it. I did not expect to hear so much in such specific terms. During negotiations, there are definite limitations on what can be said. The fact that my right hon. and learned Friend said so much should help to restore confidence.
I was glad to hear him say certain things that I know the people in Hong Kong want to hear. He said that there must be a detailed and binding agreement and that the essentials must be formally recorded with clarity and in detail. That is exactly what the people want. He also said that the people of Hong Kong need to know the terms and


to have time to express their views about them. That, again, was said by everyone I met in Hong Kong. They will be as pleased as I am to know that my right hon. and learned Friend has the confidence in the outcome of the negotiations to be able to say those things from the Dispatch Box.
I hope too that the people of Hong Kong will feel that what has been said about China and the trust that can be placed in its implementation of written agreements, is helpful to them. We talk about believing in the People's Republic of China. The people of Hong Kong have of course even more reason than us to want to believe in its promises. They have the need, which we do not have, not only to believe in it but to have additional assurances that that belief is justified. We should not complain about that; it is only human. We should do exactly the same if we were in their place. To give absolute guarantees would be equally wrong, but we must go as far along that road as we can.
I hope that the debate will have given some comfort to the Hong Kong belongers. I hope it has demonstrated to them the real fund of good will that exists on both sides of the House and our very real concern for their future. I hope that it will bring home to them our awareness of our responsibilities and our desire to discharge them to the very limit of what is practicable. I hope that it will also have demonstrated that we do have a substantial understanding of their problems and their feelings.
It is important that they do appreciate that we understand both their problems and their feelings. I hope too that the reasons that have been spelled out to show that there are grounds for confidence will be of some comfort to them.
I hope that that will all happen, but I guess that the people of Hong Kong will still say, "Yes, that is all very well, but please try to give us some more 'chopsticks' (assurances). The more you give us 'chopstick', the more you give us confidence, and the better for us, and thus for China and for you, that will be." They will say, "We do not expect absolute guarantees, but we should like to hear at least a few more assurances of 'best efforts'."
We all agree with the people of Hong Kong that we should like to see freedom of entry and exit included in the agreement. However, as has been said tonight, it is not much good having freedom of exit if there is nowhere to go. As soon as one mentions that, one tends to stir up all the immigration problems and everyone thinks, "Oh dear, 5 million Hong Kongers arriving on our doorstep. We cannot cope with that." I believe that that overlooks the reality of the matter. Not many of those 5 million want to leave. Hong Kong is their life and their country. They built it and they would much rather stay there. They know that we cannot provide asylum for them or guarantee them places elsewhere. They would like to hear that if it all went wrong—we so hope that it will not—we would use our best efforts to see that we and the rest of the world took a share of the burden of finding places for them to go. I am sure that we would do that if it happened—that is, use our "best efforts". I should be surprised if we did not. I wonder whether we cannot go a little further, in terms of "best efforts" only, with the assurances that we give to the people of Hong Kong.
Above all, I hope that the debate will have restored the confidence of the people of Hong Kong, not in themselves because that is there, but in their belief that they will be given the opportunity to exercise their skills, industry and confidence, to make Hong Kong an even better place in which to live.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) introduced a number of delicate and important issues, not least the continuing and what he called the valedictory position in 1997. That is what bothers a number of us. In 1996 we are, apparently, to be there; and in 1998 everything is to be different.
The question that I wish to ask Foreign Office Ministers is the same as that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey)—are we sure that 13 years is right, because it is a long, long time?
In November 1970 I had the good fortune to go with the Scottish Council for Development and Industry trade delegation to Maoist China. At that time the fashion was that Western visitors would be called for nocturnal visits to Chinese leaders. I remember vividly being asked to go after midnight to see Chen Wen Jen who was then the head of the American and European department of the Chinese Foreign Office. After about an hour and a half he suddenly began asking me in English about Labour party policy. He said, "Of course, as Lord Attlee, Mrs. Castle and Mr. Bevan were telling me—" That was something that had happened not the previous week or month but 17 years before, when Clem Attlee led that Labour party delegation to China. It is a rather different time scale to the one that we are normally used to in Western Europe. I say that not simply for the sake of reminiscence. I understand that the time scale in the far East may be a bit different to the sort of hectic and frenetic time scale that we are used to. I hope that the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) will be able to answer my specific question when he returns to the debate. In these discussions—one cannot probe them too deeply—has there been any representation from the Chinese side that the transitional period is too long? Perhaps that has not happened but, knowing the Chinese, they may well be rather inhibited from asking about that. But that does not mean that we should not offer to open the discussions. In the best judgment is there not something to be said for at least talking of a shorter transitional period, with less uncertainty; I am not saying that the time should be telescoped in a ridiculous way, but it is a long time until 1997 and much water will flow under the bridges.
My quick question is, has there been any discussion of time scale and, if not, should we not offer it for the sake of goodwill and perhaps bring all sorts of benefits to the kind of valedictory problems to which the hon. Member for Buckingham referred.
You correctly asked us to speak briefly, Mr. Speaker. I know that many hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall utter one further question. If we have some of the good sense that is shown in relation to the problems of the Eastern Pacific in relation to the paramountcy of other people's views, could not some of that good sense spill over into the South Atlantic?

Sir Bernard Braine: In my lifetime, with but two exceptions, we have led our dependencies in every quarter of the globe towards self determination and independence. We have deliberately encouraged the idea, through democratic institutions, that people can take their destinies into their own hands. The process has, by and large, been accompanied by a minimum of upheaval and a maximum of good will.
The two exceptions are Gibraltar where the transfer of sovereignty was specifically excluded by the terms of the treaty of Utrecht, and Hong Kong, where sovereign independence has never been the goal of the rulers or the ruled and where, as a consequence, constitutional progress has been minimal. Indeed the first small steps towards elections by universal franchise were taken only two years ago, when residents were permitted to elect some representatives to district boards with only advisory powers, and to elect representatives to the urban council. As for the Executive and legislative councils these are purely consultative bodies and, as hon. Members have said—I do not say this in a derogatory sense, as that would be quite unfair—they represent only themselves.
Yet, this is a system which has provided stable executive Government throughout a period of tumultuous population growth, brought about by upheavals in mainland China and the Communist revolution, and economic development which has been little short of a miracle.
Inherent in that situation has long been the knowledge that when the lease of the New Territories, which constitute about 92 per cent. of the total land area of Hong Kong, expires in 1997, Hong Kong island Kowloon would become untenable if China insisted on their return.
It is absolutely right, against that background, that the Government should have entered into negotiations. I congratulate them on the progress that has been made so far and would say only that in some ways it is a pity that such negotiations were not entered into earlier, to give a longer period of transition.
In my view, the problem facing the Government is not merely to ensure after 1997, when they may have some influence on events or none at all, continuity of the prosperity, relative freedom and way of life of 5·3 million people, many of whom are refugees from mainland China, but how to maintain their confidence in the run-up period. Confidence is the key word and it has cropped up in speech after speech in this debate. God knows, there is little enough time — I certainly do not go along with the crackpot suggestion of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in this respect—to prepare the people of Hong Kong to manage a successful and trusted autonomous region within the People's Republic.
Many of us have been to Hong Kong or to mainland China and we have had contacts with people both there and here. My Hong Kong contacts tell me that there are anxieties, which is only to be expected, but that equally —here I emphasise what young Hong Kong citizens tell me—given good will and patience by the British and Chinese Governments, the problem is not insoluble. Peking has said that Hong Kong will enjoy special administrative status for 50 years after the transfer of

sovereignty, during which time the present legal and economic system will be preserved. It has also said that Hong Kong's position as a freeport and one of the great financial centres of the world will continue.
Can we be sure that all that will happen? There are, of course, doubters, and doubts have been expressed again today. In fact, none of us can envisage what China will be like in 1997. It is difficult enough to envisage what this country will be like in 1987. Having listened carefully to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), so full of knowledge and experience, I agree with him that all that we can say is that of all people on earth the Chinese, a gifted and industrious race, are pragmatic.
Let us consider the facts. Hong Kong is invaluable to China now, bringing to it about US $7 billion per year in foreign exchange. It is an entrepot point for trade with the outside world. It buys from China billions of dollars' worth of food, medicine, consumer goods and fresh water every year. In 1979, Hong Kong paid China US $100 million for water alone. Again, who can measure the enormous fund of expertise in business, finance, banking, management skills, design, engineering, technical education and tourism that Hong Kong now possesses and which will be available to China from people speaking the same language and sharing the same culture? Clearly, China has every incentive to see that the economic miracle does not disappear. Moreover, if China wishes to bring Taiwan back into the fold, success there may well turn on the way in which Hong Kong is treated.
Both we and the people of Hong Kong have to take a great deal on trust, but it should by now be clear to Peking that Britain wants a true and lasting friendship with China. The essence of friendship is that it can be founded only on mutual trust. In his statement on 20 April my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said:
The Chinese Government have made it clear publicly that they see the administration of Hong Kong, after 1997, as being in the hands of Hong Kong people themselves.
Now I fully understand that the continuing process of negotiation between the two Governments means that my right hon. and learned Friend cannot say very much more on that score. One must be realistic about that.
It is important, however, that both Governments realise that Parliament must be satisfied that what is agreed is in the very best interests of the people of Hong Kong, and that no time is lost in preparing them to administer their own affairs as the Chinese Government themselves envisage after the transfer of sovereignty. I was most impressed by the modest and sensible proposals of one Hong Kong delegation who visited the United Kingdom recently. It was led by Dr. Ding Lik Kiu, a practising medical doctor with a wide experience of community service, and included young men. He and his colleagues, who included urban councillors, made it plain that they intended to remain as residents in Hong Kong. They did not talk about scurrying elsewhere or seeking a bolt hole. They are Hong Kong people and that is where they intend to stay.
They believe that Hong Kong can be successfully integrated with China as a special administrative region. They made modest and sensible proposals, and did not want to rush into democratic elections, party systems and so on. They proposed that at least one third of Unofficial Council Members should be elected by 1987, and that the


proportion should increase thereafter; that elections to the Executive Council should be staggered in relation to those to the legislative council, should begin not later than 1987, and should proceed in parallel; and that two thirds of the members of district boards should be elected by 1985, and all should be elected by 1994. That sounds sensible to me. That is not a mad rush but a gradual preparation for the sort of responsibility that the Chinese authorities in Peking envisage after the transfer of sovereignty.
I would judge that such a programme would be acceptable to Parliament. I would hope that it is acceptable to my right hon. and learned Friend. If it is, the sooner that it is implemented the better. It would be the height of folly to delay on the grounds that 1997 is still 13 years away. Confidence is a tender plant. It will be best strengthened by taking the people of Hong Kong into partnership, stage by stage. Truly, the future for Hong Kong begins now.

Mr. Hal Miller: The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was kind enough in his introduction to refer to my interest in Hong Kong. His imagery of bullying and bribing was hardly apt for the negotiations in progress between the British and Chinese Governments, but more suited to the Labour party's internal wrangles about devolution, and I was interested to note that he now considers that they were mistaken.
I have an interest to declare, for many reasons. I spent 13 years in the service of the Government and people of Hong Kong, I married there, I had three children born there, my eldest son now works there, and I worked for a Hong Kong Chinese firm when I left the service. The wheel has come full circle. I left the service to go into politics because I was worried about British foreign policy, and now I come to the key issue of British foreign policy towards Hong Kong, which is the future of Hong Kong.
Tonight's debate has been bipartisan and has run on the two themes of confidence and representation. It is hardly surprising that hon. Members have concentrated more on representation, and almost overlooked that that might not have a direct connection with prosperity, let alone stability. Whatever our views on that, it does not help the agreement, because there would not be time to implement the reforms we have discussed to test whether the agreement, when reached, is acceptable to the people of Hong Kong.
I was worried that some of the speeches might appear to my friends in Hong Kong to be insensitive to their fears, if not ill-formed and perhaps arrogant. If one has escaped from the People's Republic of China, or lived, as I did, through the riots in 1956, the great leap forward, the influx of refugees which nearly drowned the colony, the water shortages and the cultural revolution—all those changes in a short period are hardly likely to give one confidence in the long-term stability of Hong Kong. We must address our minds to that, and work on measures that will give confidence.
I agree that, despite all those changes and vicissitudes, China still did not actively intervene in Hong Kong. The people can congratulate themselves and draw confidence from their achievements, despite the perils and dangers to which they were exposed. However, I wish to draw a moral from that. Those achievements, and that resilience, were based on a united response from the people of Hong

Kong under firm leadership from the Hong Kong Government. Their combined effort and response brought about success, despite all the disadvantages.
Some of the talk about confidence has appeared a little glib. People are urged to have confidence, but only some of my right hon. and hon. Friends addressed the measures that are needed to give people confidence. I agree with those who say that the ultimate guarantee of the good intentions of China is not only past performance but the position of Taiwan. That sets both the maximum and the minimum of what can be obtained in the negotiations for Hong Kong. That is why the scope of my right hon. and learned Friend and his team is so limited. One wonders why the negotiations have had to be protracted for so long when, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said, the nine points for Taiwan have been clearly established for a long time. One can understand some impatience in Peking at our failure to appreciate that that was both the maximum and minimum position. I was relieved to hear my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary say that he was determined to get a written agreement. That is what is needed to boost confidence, because China has a good record of adherence to written agreements.
The pace of the negotiations, coupled with—I cannot call them indiscretions — releases from Peking have naturally made confidence more difficult to maintain. There was a big fall in the exchange rate last year, and it remains at that level, despite the truly astonishing performance of Hong Kong exports. They increased by about 47 per cent. in the first three months of this year, and there was an overall increase of more than 20 per cent. last year. That shows astonishing resilience in the face of such difficulties, but the exchange rate has still not responded. The obvious inference is that people have kept their earnings abroad and remitted only enough to pay the gas bills and the rates. Yes, they even pay rates in Hong Kong.
Further efforts are required to reassure people while the negotiations are continuing. Perhaps I could summarise those under the headings of Peking, London and Hong Kong. An effort of imagination is still required, coupled with some action. I earnestly ask Peking to accept the need for a written agreement. I am not suggesting that that agreement has to be ratified, guaranteed or assured by any third party or international body, but I hope that Peking will understand the need for a written agreement. I hope further that it will take some action as an earnest of its intention, perhaps by stopping the current flow of refugees into Hong Kong.
Perhaps Peking would also abandon its ambitions temporarily for the removal of the restrictions on COCOM list of strategic goods were Hong Kong to be an autonomous zone of China. It was very important that the Foreign Secretary was able to tell us that it can continue as an autonomous entity. Peking should recognise that some of the advantages Hong Kong has had as such an entity would not immediately accrue to it. There should be a self-denying ordinance in that respect and perhaps a speeding up of the joint project of the power plant and the contemplation of further joint measures of that sort.
From the London Government I ask for an expression of recognition of the fears and anxieties of the residents of Hong Kong which the UMELCO members voiced expertly and for which they were most unjustly traduced in some quarters. I thought they gave a fair reflection on many


points of the fears which I understand that many Hong Kong people hold. It was a reflection of the shock, bitterness and even anger that some of them must feel in the circumstances I have described.
Our Government must secure a written agreement. I do not think it can be as detailed as some people have suggested, for the simple reason that the Chinese have set a deadline on the negotiations and are bound, as I have pointed out, by the nine points in the case of Taiwan. To allay loss of confidence, our Government must explain the lines on which they are working to provide for internal security during the transitional period and for the continuance of British administration and, indeed, of British administrators after 1997.
Peking has said that British administrators up to a certain rank would be acceptable. To give those administrators confidence, there should be an indication of how their pension rights will be treated. Perhaps some of the balances of the Hong Kong Government which are held abroad should be lodged here to cover that commitment so as to give confidence. I am afraid that I have heard reports from Hong Kong that there is subversive discussion in the civil service, that there is jealousy between local and expatriate officers, and that there is concern between junior and senior officers. We need to allay those fears to secure continuance of the good administration which alone has made the success of Chinese enterprise and initiative possible in Hong Kong.
People there are most concerned about internal security. If we are not to have the people's liberation army coming into Hong Kong to provide protection for its compatriots, there should be adequate measures for internal security. I believe Peking would contemplate not allowing them in. Proper internal security means the development of a local force to take over from the British forces when they leave. In the meantime, consideration should be given to reinforcement of the British forces for the maintenance of security and for training the local force to which I have referred.
The final act of the London Government should be to devote attention to the documents necessary to provide for freedom of travel. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) exhibited his usual fears about immigration, but he failed to understand the difficulties of trying to travel round the world on a Hong Kong certificate of identity. If he tried that, he would well understand their attachment to what he described as a status that gave them no advantage. It jolly well does at airports in many European and other countries. While I understand that it would be impossible for a British Government to issue British dependent passports to citizens of Hong Kong after it is returned to China as an autonomous zone, consideration needs to be given to whether present documents could not be renewed in some form for present holders.
It is fair to say that those who escaped from China and those who were born in Hong Kong have become accustomed to enjoying the many freedoms that we have discussed — the freedom to travel, the freedom of contract, the freedom to worship, and so on. But they have not so far had to take any part in maintaining those freedoms. The freedoms have been secured by the British administration, while they have been able to concentrate on other activities. Now, I fear, they will have to take

responsibility for the maintenance of those freedoms, and that will present many of them with difficulties and novel concepts.
I regret to say that I hear reports from Hong Kong that some of our councillors may be contemplating resignation, because they do not wish to be put into the position of recommending any particular course of action or any particular agreement to the people of Hong Kong as part of the test of acceptance. That would be most unfortunate. Whereas I understand perfectly the document that they have produced, in which they well reflect the concerns expressed in Hong Kong, I am looking to them for some leadership on the issue as to how things will develop in future.
I am astonished that, since my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary held his press conference in Hong Kong, there has been no statement that I can trace and no initiative taken by the Hong Kong Government to instil confidence in the people there. There has been no mention of people going to the IMF to discuss the conditions for retaining the convertible dollar. Nobody has gone to the GATT to discuss the future of the Hong Kong textile quotas once it becomes a separate autonomous part of China. There are actions which the Hong Kong Government should be seen to be taking to show their commitment and the leadership that is needed. Unless Hong Kong acts to maintain confidence, it is no good expecting anybody else to have confidence in its future.

Sir Philip Goodhart: My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller), who knows Hong Kong so well, has called for precise agreements. It is perfectly possible to have precise agreements on such matters as the GATT, the multi-fibre arrangement and the courts of law, but there are wide areas in which it is impossible to have precise agreements. Indeed, it can be difficult to have precise discussions at all. I refer to the whole area of social and political freedom. The Chinese rightly say that they represent the people of Chinese descent in Hong Kong. For us to talk about political and social freedoms for those Chinese inhabitants of Hong Kong is as impertinent as a delegation from Argentina coming to 10 Downing street to discuss the political and civil rights of the Falkland islanders with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. One would not get very far on that.
Of course there is anxiety about the social conditions and freedoms of the Hong Kong people after 1997. The Chinese Government, as we know, attach a great deal of importance to their population policy. Families are allowed to have only one child. If one is allowed to have only one child in Peking or in Canton, why should one be allowed to have more than one child in Hong Kong? Indeed, if one advocated this in Peking, one would be vulnerable to the attacks of those in China—and there are plenty of such people in the Communist party—who believe that Hong Kong is the modern equivalent of Sodom and Gomorrah, and who wish to see its life style destroyed. The fact that Hong Kong is a rich Sodom and a prosperous Gomorrah, if anything makes the situation worse rather than better.
Many of my hon. Friends—indeed, hon. Members on both sides of the House — have referred to the uncertainly that must continue until 1997. Almost without exception, they have gone on to say that, although they


have anxieties, it will be all right on the night—all right on the day. I am not sure that it will be all right on the day, and that we are right to say that everyone should have confidence in the future.
I was, therefore, somewhat disturbed to hear the Foreign Secretary, in what I thought was an admirable survey of the current situation, say that he has no intention of recommending a solution which stimulated emigration from Hong Kong to the United Kingdom, or elsewhere. Of course we do not want to see mass emigration from Hong Kong; I absolutely agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that one must be realistic on these matters, and not raise people's expectations. It would be raising expectations falsely if one were to give the impression that we could take into this country any large number of people from Hong Kong, come what may.
I believe that the Government should now quietly and discreetly, but actively, be seeking arrangements with those countries that have space and that can take people, to produce resettlement schemes that can be activated if necessary. We have the time to work them out, and there is the money in Hong Kong to finance them. I do not believe that Chinese Communists wish to retain in Hong Kong irreconcilable elements, as they call them—those who are terrified of once again being under Communist rule.
At the end of the last war, we handed back to Communist Governments large numbers of men, women and children, and ill fortune on the whole befell them. We look back on that episode with some shame. Let us remember that we are now proposing to hand back 5·5 million people to a Communist regime, and I think that we ought to make some arrangements for those who wish to leave. Hong Kong is our last great imperial problem. Let us not leave there with shame.

Mr. James Hill: I had a curious feeling at the beginning of the debate that the great international statesmen in the Chamber were giving broad-brush treatment to a detailed and complex issue. They were not radiating the views that I picked up when I was in Hong Kong during the return of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to Peking only three weeks ago. Many hon. Members have talked about anxiety, but the feeling went far deeper than that. There was a deep-rooted fear on the part of many who had fled Communist China that they would not be able to cope. They feared that there was some sort of list and that the Chinese Communist Government would take advantage of the system in future.
There have been quite a few remarks about the way in which the Taiwanese will respond. From my observation of the Republic of China, the Taiwanese Government and the Taiwanese people I have met, I believe that there will be fierce resistance to any moves that will lead to them joining mainland China. The 18 million Taiwanese will resist far more than my Government are resisting now.
Hon. Members who were in Hong Kong three weeks ago advised UMELCO members whom they met at their headquarters to come to this place to lobby. There is no shame in doing that. They may be individuals and they may not be democratically elected, but they are aware of the fine tuning of the population in their areas. Their views should be listened to, for they are the people who will democratise Hong Kong in future. They have views to put

to the Members of this place and they have conveyed them tremendously well. They should be given every praise possible for coming to the House of Commons to try to convince us at this stage—it must seem to them to be an impossible task—that there could be another way.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) that the Government have a weak hand. My right hon. Friend said that that is our strength, and again I agree with him. We want more cynics and doubters in the Chamber. We want more anti-Communist talk for the Chinese will respond to that. If they think that we are a bit of a pushover, the negotiation will continue placidly for a year or even more. I know from my experience of Chinese negotiations in Peking that the Chinese must be told of the fears of the Hong Kong people in no uncertain manner.
The Hong Kong Legislative Council tabled a resolution on 14 March saying:
This Council deems it essential that any proposals for the future of Hong Kong should be completed in this Council before any final agreement is made.
I think that that is correct. Every member of the council who spoke was very much in favour of the resolution and it was passed overwhelmingly at the end of the debate, which lasted several hours.
I am gratified that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will give the people of Hong Kong adequate time to discuss the details, but I am a little pessimistic. I remember the debates that took place on Rhodesia, or Zimbabwe as it is now called. There were agreements, conditions and guarantees. Democratic government in all its strength was to be performed in Zimbabwe. As we all know, the result fell a long way short of what we expected.
I hope that this will be the first of a series of debates on this important issue. We should send a delegation to Hong Kong from the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. We need more details. How many of us have spoken to the Hong Kong citizens who can speak only Cantonese or Mandarin? How many opinions are we getting from the 2·5 million people who are not wealthy enough to buy themselves out?
There must be more consultation with the people. The UMELCO members can start that process and we can send a Select Committee to Hong Kong and aid the Foreign Secretary in the difficult task that he has performed so ably up to now. I am sure that his hand will be strengthened if the Chinese Government realise that several hon. Members have doubts about the future.

Mr. Michael Marshall: I regret that other parliamentary commitments have kept me out of the Chamber for part of the debate, but I heard the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I wish to concentrate on one matter to which I hope that he will refer in his reply.
I should say that, like other hon. Members, I have heard the views of the UMELCO members and I fully understand their anxieties. However, I hope that, just as we have been able to learn from them, they have able to gauge from their discussions and the debate our interest and keenness to meet their fears.
The issue on which I wish to concentrate is confidence. I declare an interest as the parliamentary adviser to Cable and Wireless, in whose Hong Kong company the


Government of Hong Kong hold a 20 per cent. stake. In that context, I believe that the long-term interests of Hong Kong should be related to the long-term interests of the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China.
There are more clear guidelines in the industrial sphere than in any other area of that tripartite relationship. There are written agreements on contracts for the future of the atomic power station in Hong Kong, involving the China Light and Power Company, which brings in GEC and French collaboration, agreements in relation to the south China sea, in which BP and oil companies from other countries are involved, and agreements on the development of telecommunications for southern China, drawing on Hong Kong as a communications centre, in which all three countries have a direct involvement.
Those three contracts are only part of the pattern for the longer term. Some written agreements run to the year 2010. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller), in the sort of informed speech which we expect from him in these matters, mentioned written agreements with the People's Republic of China. All my researches show that written agreements entered into since 1949 have been honoured. Not only is that important in the industrial sphere, but it reinforces the case those of my hon. Friends who have urged on the Foreign Secretary the need for a written agreement in the political and wider sense. That would provide political confidence and draw on the clear-cut industrial interests of the three parties principally concerned.
I have one further point to make. Those who visit Hong Kong—I do so every year—cannot help being impressed by the skill and ingenuity of the people and the way in which they have achieved such remarkable things by their own endeavours. Surely that example and illustration of the way in which enterprise can provide a degree of prosperity and well-being for many people is worth preserving in the wider sense. To take a longer view of the aspirations of the People's Republic of China, the existence of that mixed economy in the Chinese situation could have an impact on the wider relationship between the free world and the Communist bloc.
Those who recently had an opportunity to see something of the People's Republic of China's representatives, through the Inter Parliamentary Union, will know that China is at the moment showing considerable interest in playing a part in a wider parliamentary dialogue. It will not have escaped the attention of many hon. Members that China is now in the Inter Parliamentary Union after seeking admission for some 30 years. These are helpful and encouraging signs for those who believe that there is something in current Chinese policies on which we should build.
I wish, therefore, to express some optimism on the industrial and political fronts, and I suggest that there is evidence to support that optimism. Such optimism must inevitably be qualified because, in the case of Hong Kong, much remains to be done by my right hon. and learned Friend.
In conclusion, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will not overlook what I have tried to suggest are the industrial commitments of the three main parties concerned when he considers the wider political questions.

Mr. Nicholas Lyell: I am an optimist about Hong Kong, but we should be deeply insensitive if we failed to recognise the profound anxieties of the Chinese people of Hong Kong. No fewer than 3 million of them have fled from China in the past 25 years. They enjoy a freedom under the law unknown in China — freedoms which we so take for granted that we scarcely know how to articulate them—the freedom to come and go, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of the press, a liberal education system, freedom to work, freedom to own property, freedom to create and own wealth, and freedom to trade. It is the combination of those British freedoms with Chinese hard work and enterprise and business acumen which has created a society in Hong Kong which is one of the wonders of the world.
We have debated tonight, in what I consider has been a brilliant debate, whether that system can survive. I believe that it can survive, because China wishes it to. She has promised the continuation of the economic system. She rightly looks to the Hong Kong Chinese themselves to govern in our place after 1997. We must now persuade China, in the negotiations—she has given us grounds for encouragement—formally to accept in writing, to adopt and to guarantee before the world Hong Kong's system of law and freedom under the law.
China is the inheritor of great philosophical traditions but has no sophisticated system of law. The common law system and the British system of commercial law, which is now the common language of commerce throughout the world, are perhaps this country's greatest contribution to civilisation. As I know from my personal experience of practising in the courts of Hong Kong, China will inherit that priceless system, which is profoundly understood, deeply cherished and skilfully operated by lawyers who are themselves Chinese, by solicitors and barristers who every day work the system as skilfully as we do ourselves. They work it in criminal, commercial and administrative law and in the preservation of cherished civil liberties.
The system is essential to the continuance of Hong Kong's tradition of economic activity which China has promised to continue. On a more profound note, it is the foundation of the freedoms that they cherish and which 3 million voted with their feet to obtain and, above all, wish to continue.
It is no shame for a great nation to accept such a gift. The Teutonic inheritors of the Roman empire accepted their system of law. The United States, after throwing off British government, developed British common law; and in Europe, those who threw off the yoke of Napoleon accepted his code. The Chinese can gratefully accept our system of law and develop it in Hong Kong.
I agree with others that the democratic institutions must develop, but not too rapidly. If our system of law is accepted and the institutions are developed, we can trust the Chinese, and Hong Kong's future is bright.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: With the leave of the House and in the absence, because he is not well, of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce), perhaps I might reply to the debate. I apologise to the House for not having heard all of the debate though I have heard quite a substantial part of it.
Although there have been differences of opinion on several points, it is noticeable that in the broad issues that have been raised, there has been remarkable unanimity on both sides of the House. The debate was characterised, first, by a recognition of the realities that we face, to which the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) drew attention. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) introduced a welcome note of optimism, but there has been widespread understanding of the natural anxieties of the people of Hong Kong.
There were two points on which differences of view became a little sharper, in regard to which some modest correction might be appropriate. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East said that the Government's approach to sovereignty and administration after 1997 was wrong, in that we were wrong at the outset of the negotiations to press for the continuance of a British presence. I do not find it easy to accept that point. It was well answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Sir P. Bryan) who said that, although I made an announcement in Hong Kong on Good Friday, which I have repeated in the House today, it would not be right to have taken that as the starting position in the negotiations.
The second point on which there was some difference of opinion was the role of and the views expressed by the Unofficial Members of the Executive and Legislative Council. The House was ready, for the most part, to accept the point that was made strongly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) and the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) that the Unofficial Members have a difficult role to discharge but have discharged it, and will continue to do so, with a high sense of duty. The great majority of those who have spoken, especially my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins), acknowledged that it was right and important to pay close attention to their views. Nobody, least of all the Unofficial Members, would claim that they play an exclusive role in representing the views of the people of Hong Kong. They, like us, want opinion canvassed more widely, while taking account of their views.
Right hon. and hon. Members posed questions and made suggestions on many other matters. I cannot, at this late stage, undertake to answer all, or indeed many, of them, especially as I have come unexpectedly into the debate for a second time. However, I certainly undertake to consider the suggestions that have been made.
Much discussion has focussed on the matter of acceptability and how it was to be determined. I was interested to note that the idea of a referendum found few, if any, friends. I am told that not even my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) took this as an occasion for mentioning that topic, so that means that the idea is indeed friendless.
A number of suggestions were made about the way in which we should take account of opinion in Hong Kong. I start from the fact that we are engaged in a process of continuing consultation, but I shall study the suggestions, taking account of the wide range of channels that already exist.
Perhaps the most interesting spread of opinion developed on democratisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) were the only hon.

Members critical of the Government's delay in not moving towards democratisation earlier. I do not believe that that criticism can be fairly accepted. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South explained the Chinese Government's attitude as manifested in earlier years. He rightly pointed out that it would have been impracticable to make an earlier start on the process of democratisation.
The differing expressions on the future were interesting and deserving of study. One school of thought, including the hon. Members for Yeovil and for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, wanted us to press ahead very quickly with the process of democratisation. A cautious view came from my hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) and for Boothferry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South and the hon. Member for Monklands, West. It is important to recognise that the Government support the further development of representative institutions in Hong Kong in the years ahead. The Hong Kong Government have already announced their intention of publishing in the summer a Green Paper formulating proposals whereby the representative status of the two main central Government institutions — the Executive Council and the legislative Council — might be developed in the coming years. We do not see it as our role to dictate to the Government or the people of Hong Kong just how and how fast changes should be introduced. We believe that it is right for the Government and the people of Hong Kong to have the primary role of deciding how and how fast these systems should develop.
Hon Members sought assurance from the Government on two points. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire echoed a point made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) about the importance of freedoms in Hong Kong. I omitted that point from the relevant section of my opening speech, but not because I attached little importance to it. I made it clear in my statement in Hong Kong that we look forward to a system under which
existing freedoms would be maintained — freedom from arbitrary arrest, freedom of religion, assembly and speech, freedom of travel, and freedom of the Press.
Hon. Members have rightly drawn attention to those matters.
The extent to which we can assure the effectiveness of British administration through the long consultation period between now and 1997 caused concern to hon. Members. Some hon. Members argued that the period might be shortened. I believe that point was raised by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East and by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). The Government do not believe that it would be right to accept that view. We have a duly and responsibility in respect of Hong Kong to provide a framework within which the Hong Kong Government can continue to discharge their duties.
One of the reasons why it is important to maintain that framework under the British authority was urged by hon. Members during the debate — to allow time for the development of representative government along the lines hon. Members have requested. I should like to leave the House and others in no doubt that, in that respect, the British Government will continue to provide the framework within which the Hong Kong Government can administer Hong Kong and plan for its future until the due


date of 1997. It is important for that point to be understood. As I said in my opening speech, it is important to know where authority and responsibility lie.

Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot give way, as only two minutes remain in the debate.
The negotiations will continue, with the objectives that I have described. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) drew attention to the importance of securing the right outcome to the negotiation, taking account not only of the interests of the people of Hong Kong but of the wider interests and commercial activity of outside investors, which is an essential part of the foundation of the future of Hong Kong.
The objective that we should have in mind is the achievement of a clear, full and detailed international agreement that will provide the assurances for the future that are desired as much in this House as in Hong Kong. An agreement along the lines that we are working on embodied in the form of an international agreement between two sovereign states, ourselves and the People's Republic of China — a Government who attach importance to their international reputation—must be the right objective towards which to work.
I thank right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House for the benefit of the advice that they have offered to the Government and for the spirit in which it has been offered.

It being Twelve o' clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put, pursuant to the Order this day.

House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975

Mr. Speaker: Before I call upon the Minister of State, Treasury, to move the motion on the Order Paper, I must inform the House that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) is out of order. It is addressed to section 1 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, not to schedule 1 — which is the only part of the Act that can be amended under the procedure being followed tonight. The hon. Gentleman cannot, therefore, raise the subject matter of the amendment during the debate.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): I beg to move,
That Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 be amended as follows:—

PART II OF SCHEDULE I

1. The following entry shall be omitted:—
'A Value Added Tax Tribunal.'

PART III OF SCHEDULE I

Additional entries

2. There shall be inserted at the appropriate places:—

'Advocate Depute (not being the Solicitor General for Scotland) appointed by the Lord Advocate.
Chairman or Chief Executive of the Simplification of International Trade Procedures Board.
Controller of Audit appointed under section 97(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
Controller of Audit appointed under paragraph 7(1) of Schedule 3 to the Local Government Finance Act 1982.
Director of Britoil p.l.c. nominated by a Minister of the Crown or 0government department.
President or Vice-President of Value Added Tax Tribunals or full-time chairman of value added tax tribunals.'.

Entries omitted

3. The following entries shall be omitted:—

'Chairman of the Electricity Consumer Council.
Chairman of any of the National Boards constituted under the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979, if appointed by the Secretary of State under section 5(8)(a) of that Act.
Director of the Scottish Agricultural Securities Corporation p.l.c. nominated by a Minister of the Crown or government department.
Distributor of Stamps appointed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for the Stock Exchange at Glasgow.
Registration Officer appointed under section 6(3) of the Representation of the People Act 1949.'

Other amendments

4. — (1) In the entry 'Chairman of the Distinction and Meritorious Service Committee for Northern Ireland' after the word 'Service' there shall be inserted the word 'Awards'.

(2) In the entry 'Paid Chairman of a Health Board constituted under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1972' for '1972' there shall be substituted '1978'.

(3) At the end of the entry 'Chairman of the Management Committee of the Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service' there shall be added the words 'constituted under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978.'

(4) For the entry 'Chairman of the Post Office Users' National Council' there shall be substituted the following entry—
'Chairman of any of the Post Office Users' Councils established under section 14 of the Post Office Act 1969.'

(5) In the entry 'Director of ICL Public Limited Company nominated or appointed by a Minister of the Crown or government department' the words 'or appointed' shall be omitted.

(6) At the end of the entry 'Member of an Agricultural Marketing Board appointed under section 3 of the Agricultural


Marketing Act (Northern Ireland) 1964' there shall be added the words 'or Schedule 2 to the Agricultural Marketing (Northern Ireland) Order 1982.'

(7) In the entry 'Registration Officer appointed under section 8(2) of the Representation of the People Act 1983' after '8(2)' there shall be inserted 'or (3)'.

PART IV OF SCHEDULE I

5. In the second column of the entry relating to Her Majesty's Commissioner of Lieutenancy in the City of London for the words 'The Cities of London and Westminster' there shall be substituted the words 'The constituency comprising the whole of the City of London.'.

The motion seeks the approval of the House to the amendment of the Order in Council of schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. The procedure we follow is laid down in section 5, and schedule 1 lists those offices whose holders are disqualified from membership of the House. It is, obviously, necessary to keep the detailed provisions up to date.

It has been the usual practice for any legislation that establishes new offices or winds up existing offices to amend schedule 1 accordingly. The 1975 Act is reprinted from time to time in accordance with the provisions of the Act to incorporate such amendments. The last such reprint was made on 1 May. In addition, from time to time it is necessary to bring schedule 1 up to date by Order in Council to add offices that have been created by administrative action, to amend or correct existing entries and to delete offices that are no longer appropriate. The procedures laid down in section 5(1) of the Act have been followed on previous occasions, and certainly during the past two years I have brought them before the House.

This motion covers 20 amendments, made up of six new entries, six deletions and eight amendments to existing entries. The amendments are described in detail in the explanatory note that has been placed in the Vote Office. Ministers have been individually responsible for those additional entries that cover offices within their areas of responsibility. They based their judgments on the same general principles and criteria that have been followed in the past, and which are covered in the explanatory note.

As we are following a well-established procedure, I commend the motion to the House.

Dr. Oonagh McDonald: I hope that in the amendments the basic consideration will be to exclude as few people as possible from standing for Parliament. I hope that when applying the criteria the Government will bear in mind that overriding consideration.
The criteria outlined in the explanatory note appear to differ in their nature. Criterion C refers to
Offices imposing duties which with regard to time or place would prevent their holders from fulfilling Parliamentary duties satisfactorily".
The fact that they would take up too much time or otherwise prevent a Member of Parliament from attending Parliament seems to be a somewhat vague criterion. I hope that it will be one that will occupy less of the Government's attention when they consider who should be disqualified from standing for Parliament. Although I understand that the criterion has been operating for some time, it nevertheless seems to be rather difficult to apply, bearing in mind that many Members hold jobs of various kinds, which some of us would suggest take up too much of their time. Of course Members are free to carry out such work and the matter is left very much to their discretion.
My second point would perhaps require an amendment to the Act. It is that persons should be able to stand for Parliament, but on being elected they should be obliged to give up whatever post or office they hold if it falls within the list of disqualifying offices. It would leave people free to decide whether to run for Parliament. If they are elected they are clearly aware that they have to give up the post. That might be a better approach than obliging a person to decide to give up the job before standing for Parliament.
Will the list be reconsidered as various privatisation measures take effect? That would require some alteration to the list. There are one or two minor puzzles. I wonder why the word "or" is inserted in
Chairman or Chief Executive of the Simplification of International Trade Procedures Board.
I understand that the Lord Chancellor is considering whether justices of the peace — not stipendiary magistrates — should be disqualified from standing as Members of Parliament on the grounds that it would involve too much work. Criterion C, which I have already mentioned, would apply here. If that is the case, and it is a disqualification that the Government intend to propose later, what will be the position of Members of Parliament who are already justices of the peace? That could seriously reduce the number of alliance members of Parliament. I am sure that the Government would take a serious view of that matter. Will they be required to stop being Members, thus causing an interesting series of by-elections, will they merely be required to resign as justices of the peace, or will they have the choice?

Mr. Hayhoe: I can assure the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) that the objective is to exclude as few people as possible from the privilege of being eligible for election to the House. The criteria are well-established. I have noted what the hon. Lady has said. It can be taken into account for the future and I will reflect upon the points that she made about criterion C which I agree is rather wide. The hon. Lady suggested that those holding disqualifying offices should have the option of being able to resign their office if elected to Parliament, rather than being disqualified. That would mean changing the primary legislation in the 1975 Act. That could not be done by order and would, therefore, be considered if the Act came up for review.
The hon. Lady referred to several detailed points. First, the list is reviewed each year. We follow that procedure and I gave an undertaking to the House in 1982 that we would bring forward an amended schedule, as we have done tonight, so that the list does not become too out of date. She asked why the measure referred to the chairman "or" to the chief executive. It is because one or the other could be disqualified. I imagine that that is purely the way in which our legal advisers and draftsmen transcribe our thoughts into the action documents.
The hon. Lady also referred to the possibility that the Lord Chancellor might be considering applying the disqualification to certain justices of the peace. I am not aware of that; indeed, if such a proposal were introduced it would need to come to the House for endorsement before it became effective. Whatever the prospect of an interesting series of by-elections, they could not take place by stealth and would require debate in the House. I suspect that if that proposition were before us tonight rather more


hon. Members would be in the Chamber. I hope that the low attendance may indicate general acceptance of the motion, which I commend to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Housing Associations

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Mr. Marcus Fox: I declare an interest in this subject. I served for several years on a housing association before becoming a Member of the House. It is even more important to say that my wife has served for much longer on a more successful housing association. In a sense it is difficult for me to admit that, but it is true.
With that family background, I want to raise some matters in regard to the future of housing associations. I am not attacking the concept of housing associations. They have demonstrated in the past 20 years that they are able to adapt quickly to changing market conditions, which seems to contradict the way in which some local authorities operate. Perhaps housing associations are strictly non-political. Their aim is to provide housing and the management thereof. I believe, however, that those bodies could fulfil a number of new roles.
Again, I in no sense seek to attack the Government's and my party's policy of home ownership. If there is one area in which we can claim great success, it is in spreading home ownership among those who never thought to achieve it, so that hundreds of thousands of council houses are now owned by the people who occupy them.
Without disavowing the principle of home ownership, however, none of us believes that it can extend to 100 per cent. of the electorate. I am sorry that more Opposition Members are not present to hear me say this. I believe that the upper limit may be 75 or 80 per cent. The achievement of 80 per cent. home ownership would give me great joy, but I accept that there are certain categories of people who, for economic or social reasons, will never be able to purchase their own homes.
If we accept that some 20 per cent. of the electorate will never own their own homes, we must consider the rented sector very carefully. Why are we not using housing associations to better effect to manage a greater percentage of the rented housing stock? The fact that properties were not originally provided by housing associations should not preclude their being managed by such bodies. I am thinking here of properties owned by local authorities. One does not have to wander far from the Palace of Westminster to see run-down, council-owned properties not just in disrepair but, in some cases, unmanageable in their present state.
My hon. Friend the Minister will no doubt remind me that blocks of flats and other properties have already been handed over to private builders by local councils. That is true, and I welcome the improvements in that respect, but that has been largely in terms of sale. I believe that that could be extended to include modernised properties being taken out of the hands of local councils and handed over to housing associations to solve the problem of properties for rent and the many accommodation needs that can be satisfied only in that way.
Sheltered housing for the elderly, hostels for young people and accommodation for the disabled will always require a financial contribution from the public sector, but I am more concerned about the management of those properties. Housing associations have already shown their ability to offer a range of options in terms of tenure, and


it is important that that benefit should be appreciated. Few other housing development agencies, especially private developers, can offer such facilities.
It is most important at this time that we should also consider the decay that is now so obvious in our inner cities, and a single approach to the problem is not sufficient.
Before housing associations can take on this increased role, however, we must consider the state of what is a relatively small and compact industry compared with local authority housing departments. At present, there are more than 2,500 registered housing associations. In my view, that is far too many. I have no wish to criticise the smaller associations in which the committee members employ no staff but give their own time voluntarily for the public good without any hope of glorification. Nevertheless, they operate on a very small scale. Only about 35 of all registered housing associations hold stocks of more than 2,000 properties, and very few indeed hold stocks in excess of 10,000 properties. When one compares that with the position of local authorities which often have tens of thousands of properties, the problem can be seen in perspective.
I suggest that it is time that we had two divisions of housing associations. The first division would contain the 35 or so that I have described. They have a record of efficiency and progress which can be measured in terms of their finances. They are well managed and—my hon. Friend will appreciate this—in surplus. That is the real test. Many smaller associations are considerably in deficit.
The real test would be for the associations, however large, to rely less on public funds and to raise what they need from the private sector. For the expanding role that I have described, they need to enter into a different sort of partnership, not with the Government and Housing Corporation, but with building societies, banks and pensions funds. Less use should be made of public funds, but if they are used, there must be scrutiny. The Housing Corporation has a role to play in that way as public accountability is vital. I shall say about the 12 biggest housing associations only that they are geographically spread throughout the country.
My hon. Friend the Minister has for many years held the record for replying to Adjournment debates, and I shall not keep him up too late. I turn now to the biggest quango in town. It is time that we turned the spotlight on the Housing Corporation. This year it has £680 million to spend. As fewer schemes are pending, it should have less work to do, but that does not seem to be the case. It seems to create more and more work. It investigates the minutest details of proposed schemes. That is becoming increasingly unnecessary.
The biggest housing associations have more experience than the Housing Corporation in building and management. It must accept that when such associations are well run, it need carry out only spotchecks. Those associations are registered and must make annual returns to the Registrar of Friendly Societies, who must presumably be satisfied with their performance.
In the past 20 years those associations have shown that they are capable of running their own affairs. They have the professional expertise. They do not need big brother—the Housing Corporation—to tell them what to do. There would be spin-offs from that. Schemes would be more quickly approved. At present it takes two or three

years. A housing association can buy land, hold it for a year or longer, and pay interest on it before the scheme is given the go-ahead.
My suggestion could reduce delays by more than 50 per cent., which is a worthwhile objective. I do not rule out the role of the Housing Corporation. It must decide on the allocation of funds. Just as this House decides for local authorities, the Housing Corporation should decide on the funds for individual housing associations. A lump sum could be given to associations which have proved themselves. Instead of approving every housing project individually, the Housing Corporation could get on with another job, which I shall now describe.
As many of the 2,000 smaller housing associations are in deficit, they need to be wound up and amalgamated, and sound management policies must be introduced. They will always depend on the public purse for their funds. The Housing Corporation will continue to play a role in this respect, but only so long as the associations are in need of professional advice. When they become competent, they should be given more independence.
Finally, I turn to committee membership. The present limitations under the Housing Act 1974 are too restrictive about those who may serve on committees. I understand the reasons for that. In the 1960s there were vested interests on those committees, with some members making personal gains. Architects and others formed housing associations and made sure that business came to them. We have moved a long way since then, and we now have a professional organisation.
The restrictions go far beyond what we now need to accommodate public accountability. Adversely, they limit the full potential of housing association activity. Housing associations must change direction. I have already described the new role which will demand different skills of committee members. Are we saying that, if we can find funds from the private sector, a person who is employed by a bank cannot serve on a housing association if his bank provides funds to it? Under the existing regulations that is the case. Even an official of a building society that might be moving into this area to help cannot serve on a housing association. There are ways of coping with this problem. Hon. Members must declare their interests when they come to the House. Members of housing associations could declare their interests, which could be inspected, and guidelines could be laid down for them. It is essential to recurit such people on an even wider basis to give more expertise to committees.
I could name one or two large builders if I were on ITV. Just because a building firm is doing a first-class job, are we saying that directors of that company should not serve in their own time and provide the expertise which is lacking? I believe that that lack is costing much money.
I am simply seeking to give housing associations a wider role in the provision of housing for our nation. I hope that building societies, commercial banks, insurance companies and pension funds will co-operate to that end, because it can only be in the national interest.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): Usually when I see my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) in his place at this hour, it is to nod through some minor change in the composition of a Select Committee or Standing Committee, a mission in which he is often frustrated by


third parties. But tonight he has raised a most important subject—the future of housing associations. I pay tribute to the work that he and his wife have done for that movement, and I am grateful for his kind words about our home ownership initiatives.
My hon. Friend rightly began by saying that many people, for a variety of reasons, wish to rent their property rather than to buy it, and that Government policies must take their wishes into account. He suggested that we should transfer or encourage the transfer of more vacant property from local authorities to housing associations. Ministers sanction such transfers in appropriate cases, but we are anxious to ensure that, in the first place, local authorities should consider other initiatives, such as homesteading or improvement for sale, before they make the case for transfer to housing associations.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the need to reduce the number of housing associations. It is now difficult to start a housing association and register it with the corporation, because it looks hard at the number of existing associations in any given area. However, there are problems if housing associations become too big. If that happens, they tend to replicate the bureaucracy and the remoteness that are a problem with local authorities, and often lose the personal contact and involvement of committee members with tenants and the development of the association, which is the strength of the movement.
My hon. Friend mentioned the deficits of housing associations, quite rightly because we are anxious that the funds available to the movement should, wherever possible, go to the development of new accommodation rather than subsidising existing properties. I think the deficit is not so much a function of the size of a housing association as the date when the properties were built. Obviously a housing association with an existing portfolio which was developed some time ago will generate a surplus because the interest is now quite a small proportion of the rents whereas the newer properties tend to generate a loss.
My hon. Friend rightly emphasised the need for partnership between housing associations and the private sector. If I have time later I should like to say a word about that because, if the movement can reduce its dependence upon the Housing Corporation and public funds, it becomes even more independent and able to develop fresh initiatives without Government measures or the Housing Corporation looking over its shoulder all the time.
We have tried to streamline the process of securing approval for projects. When my hon. Friend was in my Department the procedure of double scrutiny was abandoned and it was made easier for worthwhile projects to go ahead. I have some reassuring news for him in response to what he said about the need to give an inside track to those larger housing associations with a proven track record to enable them to make good progress with their plans. I can tell him that special arrangements apply to the larger housing associations, which he mentioned, with a proven track record. Associations which have a programme agreement with the corporation are now enabled to have their projects approved in exactly the sort of streamlined way that my hon. Friend outlined rather than to have to submit them one by one and secure approval for each individual project. We are making good progress with that.
Towards the end of his remarks my hon. Friend mentioned committee membership and the restrictions that were imposed. I should like to write to him about the specific points he raised about bank managers and members of building companies who may for good reasons wish to be associated with housing associations. As he knows, the provisions that are set out in schedule 16 to the Housing Act 1980 are basically there not just to prevent malpractice but to make certain that there can be no conflict of interest for committee members, officers and employees of housing associations.
This may have the consequence that some housing associations cannot help some deserving applicants simply because they are related to employees of the association. I think that can be justified by the need for certainty about the probity of housing association committees and their staff. As I said, I should like to write to my hon. Friend about the further points he raised about bank managers and other professions which raise a different issue from the conflict of interest that may have inspired schedule 16.
My hon. Friend mentioned some of the challenges that face the housing association movement at the moment and the way in which they can most effectively take full advantage of the range of experience that they have built up over many years. Like my hon. Friend, I have experience of the movement. I was chairman of a medium-sized housing association for seven years, so I have seen from the inside some of the problems and challenges facing the movement. I stress to my hon. Friend the importance that I know he realises the Government attach to the contribution of the voluntary housing movement to meeting local housing needs. We value highly the contribution that the movement has made to our policies in tackling the very real housing challenge that affects particularly the inner cities that he mentioned.
Our commitment is demonstrated by the very large public expenditure that we have allocated to housing associations in addition to the Housing Corporation's gross provision for the current year of £687 million. Local authorities are expected to contribute well over £100 million to projects carried out by local housing associations.
We recognise that the housing association movement provides good quality homes and manages and maintains them well. They cater for the special needs of the frail elderly and the disabled. They also cater for single people, one-parent families and others with special housing difficulties.
As my hon. Friend knows, the movement depends on the voluntary effort made by members of the committees and unpaid officers and their advisers. That is an impressive testimony to their commitment to solving housing problems. I greatly admire their devotion and that of their staff.
My hon. Friend mentioned the inner cities; housing associations are active in nearly all the designated housing action areas. Nearly half their programme is in the defined urban areas, where unemployment is highest and where the needs are greatest. The associations can take into account the special housing problems of ethnic minorities. Therefore, the resources that we have made available to the movement are well targeted in terms of the Government's priorities for the areas and categories of people who need them most. I see no sign of change there and therefore no diminution of interest by the Government in the work of the housing association movement.
Housing associations also offer an extremely valuable additional source of new and improved dwellings, augmenting significantly the output of local authorities and the private sector. That range of work has largely been made possible by the introduction, 10 years ago, of a new system of Government grants, paid through the Housing Corporation and local authorities, which has enabled the movement to expand to become a major provider of subsidised housing for those in need. About 2,700 registered housing associations now own and manage around 500,000 dwellings.
My hon. Friend mentioned the way in which the movement is expanding into new initiatives. It is right to point out that the housing associations followed our encouragement to develop low-cost home ownership using the mechanism and grant-aid introduced by the Housing Act 1980. The housing associations have built, renovated or acquired properties for sale to low income purchasers, mostly on shared ownership terms, which is a concept which most associations have experimented with successfully. A total of nearly 10,000 shared ownership sales have been completed by the movement in the past few years.
On the same theme, the housing associations have also pioneered leasehold schemes for the elderly and have participated in the rescue of rundown areas through improvement for sale. On the right-to-buy schemes, some 4,500 tenants in England have been able to purchase their homes from non-charitable housing associations, thanks to the 1980 Act. On top of that, co-ownership societies have been given the power to sell their properties to members, and over 23,000 dwellings have moved into conventional owner-occupation as a result of that initiative.
I understand that there have been some worries that the progressive take-up of the right to buy on the stock of rented dwellings might have had some impact on the non-charitable housing associations and perhaps on the motivation of those who run them. One has to put that in perspective. If the pattern is maintained for the next three years, about 1 to 1·5 per cent. of the housing association rented stock will have become owner-occupied. While I should like to see more homes bought, one has to recognise that the vast majority of those who are accommodated by the voluntary housing movement will not be able to buy their homes; therefore, the impact will be relatively small.
The Housing and Building Control Bill will extend the right to buy, and through it we have made provision for a scheme by which the tenants of charitable housing associations whose dwellings were provided from public funds will be able to purchase homes in the private sector at a discount similar to that which would have been available under the right to buy, and on shared ownership terms if necessary. That represents a significant new opportunity for those who do not have the right to buy their present property. Non-charitable housing associations will be asked to assist in the scheme, in much the same way

as they did last year with the do-it-yourself shared ownership programme, which proved so highly popular with many tenants and other first-time buyers.
I know that the movement believes that it could sustain a much larger programme than it has at the moment. Of course, we do not wish to see its capacity in any way dissipated or lost. The movement has put to Ministers a figure of about £1 billion on the resources that could be used and has specified a preferred balance between the provision of rented accommodation and the home-ownership initiatives. So Ministers know how much they think they could do and where they would like the balance to be. We are aware of and respect the emphasis that they place on sustaining the level of output of homes for rent and preserving their rented stock.
My hon. Friend will recognise that, as in other areas relying on Government financial support, there is a limit on the amount of public funding that we can afford, and the level of resources we are currently making available through the Housing Corporation for 1984–85—which, as I said, allows a gross programme of £687 million—is designed to ensure that the housing associations can continue to make a significant contribution to meeting housing needs.
Housing associations have also made a great contribution to home ownership and are carrying forward at the moment a range of new home ownership initiatives and implementing the right to buy. I hope that those activities can increase, in so far as the resources available will allow, because they enable people to have a stake in their own home—people who might otherwise not have that opportunity.
My hon. Friend mentioned private funding. New ways of funding these and other housing association projects are being explored. There is a need to take a much wider look at the opportunities for attracting private finance into the movement. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the National Federation of Housing Associations has put proposals to us at the moment, which we are studying urgently, for the use of alternative funding. We have to consider carefully the scale of any experiment and the extent to which guarantees may be needed from the public sector.
I pay tribute to the work of Sir Hugh Cubitt, chairman of the Housing Corporation, who has made a major contribution to the work of the movement, and also to the National Federation of Housing Associations under the directorship of Richard Best, whose assiduous efforts in representing the movement's interests to the Government have been extremely valuable, and will, I am sure, continue to be so.
I am convinced that the ability and capacity of the movement to innovate and adapt to changing needs will prove to be a major strength in the future in tackling the issues that my hon. Friend has rightly set out before the House tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to One o' clock.